"Git Outta Here"
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
"Git Outta Here"
The story you've all been waiting for:
AMERICA has been waiting these couple of weeks since now-President Barack Obama arrived back in the nation's capital, and finally that "change" that the new commander in chief and supporters keep talking about made its grand entrance on center stage yesterday.
With three bold strokes of the pen and a "there you go," Obama signed orders to close the controversial prison camp for alleged terrorists at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba within a year, and to end secret CIA jailings, assuring the world that "we don't torture."
Just two days into the 44th presidency, Obama's matching orders were the most dramatic change from the anti-terrorism policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, that so divided the nation and alienated much of world opinion.
Have a great football-free and torture-free weekend, and I'll see you on Sunday.
Comments (165)
Xi Jah you think thats bad 4 British Muslims captured on the battlefield were released from Gitmo into British custody three years ago were promptly released by the bloody liberals there because their human rights were 'violated' , they commited treason which is still a hanging offence but of course that wont happen so anybody serving in Afganistan reads this next time strap a grenade to them and pull the friggin pin .— PAEnglish
"Let the record show that Jack Bauer is still resorting to said tactics" In a related story, Batman and The Green Hornet join forces to battle the Green Goblin.— Hamlet
---}}} Because all the folks in Gitmo are just great people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.. {{{--- Yet another strawman. It only shows the weakness of your own position, bryanc, when you have to fabricate nonsense like that and then argue against it. No one, ever, made such an argument except Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., when they mischaracterize libs. Keep that up, bryanc, and I might have to re-evaluate your non-Republican toady status. I could turn it around and say that you're arguing that anyone and everyone except bryanc should be locked up without any legal representation, because at some point in the future, they might wind up on the battlefield fighting American soldiers, I mean, we don't know for sure that sloboat isn't a terrorist, right?— Talking point sleuth- bp,if you are checking in this weekend, these are alot of the same rules/regs we talked about. mentions the conflict of interest in ratings agencies as well. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28832617/— RG
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Oh since nobody disagreed with my other comment ( you could I wouldnt mind ) I was at Fort Dix umm in 84 . Was being shown around by a guy from the 82 ( great unit btw ) there were more helicopters at Dix than in the entire British armed forces to this day that fact still amazes me , and since none of you care I'm going to shut up .— PAEnglish
- to the 1776 quote .. if you check your history books you will find that all the leaders of the revolution were either originally from Britain or directly decended from Brits , virtually everybody at that time regarded themselves as British not just subjects but citizens so that wasnt very original . the others Delta Force and the Seals are good mainly because they now follow a training manual similar to the SAS/SBS and Delta train directly with the SAS .— PAEnglish
- ---}}} As a national policy, we have tried to talk, negotiate and reason with some of these folks since the 70's. {{{--- Read what experienced interrogation experts have to say about the most effective ways to interrogate suspects. They will say that torture is unreliable and ineffective. Primary focus should be placed on intelligence gathering and winning the hearts and minds of those who would be likely to support terrorists. As for the terrorists themselves, the point isn't to "reason" with them. No one is expecting to change their perspectives. The point is to explore what ways you can affect their behavior by finding if there are any common interests. You don't have to concede anything you don't want to concede. If you don't find any areas of common interest - so be it, you haven't lost anything in the attempt, and even if it doesn't produce direct results, at least it restores credibility a sense of moral authority that was demolished over the last eight years. As for the notion that talking to them legitimizes them - check out what has happened in North Korea, Iran and Gaza, for example, as the result of a refusal to turn to diplomacy; the political/strategic power of terrorists has exploded. Why do you think the Bush administration did a turn-around with N. Korea and Iran over the last couple of years? Because their categorical non-diplomacy stance was a complete failure; even Bush administration officials realize and have stated that (in essence). It is only the "dead-enders" who refuse to accept that reality. You're arguing against a straw-man. No one is saying that you "reason" with a terrorist.— Talking point sleuth
- Interesting numbers, but I would venture to say that if we go back to the way we handled terrorism 10 years ago(ie using the criminal justcie system), we will basically go back to square one. So before you go down the road of labeling me a toadie and sadistic hate monger, think about this. As a national policy, we have tried to talk, negotiate and reason with some of these folks since the 70's. Yassar Arafat is a great example. But we never got any closer to ending terrorism. What makes anyone think that by denouncing torture, we will improve things?— Norton
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- --snip-- UPDATE: In the last week alone, The Washington Post's David Ignatius twice said that those who advocate investigations into Bush crimes are nothing more than "liberal score-settlers." Newsweek's Jon Barry angrily accused those who advocate investigations of lying about their belief in the rule of law because (he can divine) that they are instead motivated by "vengeance, pure and simple." And yesterday, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham claimed that it is those on what he called "the hard left" who believe in investigations. Apparently, it is the case -- yet again -- that majorities of Americans are hard-left, score-settling, vengeance-driven liberals, who embrace views that are claimed by the Beltway to be nothing but "fringe leftist ideological rantings" (a synonym for: "those who do not believe in prevailing Beltway pieties").— Talking point sleuth
- --snip-- One reason for Obama's order on judicial proceedings is to figure out just how to handle those suspects, and among those in the new poll who want Gitmo closed, more than six in 10 said they should be put on trial in the regular U.S. court system. A third said they'd like them to face justice in their home countries. Even more surprisingly for spouters of conventional wisdom, a majority of Americans (50-47%) believe that the Obama administration should investigate whether the Bush administration's treatment of detainees was illegal. When asked: "Do you think the Obama administration should or should not investigate whether any laws were broken in the way terrorism suspects were treated under the Bush administration?," Democrats overwhelmingly favor such investigations (69%), while Republicans oppose them by the same margin, and independents are slightly against.— Talking point sleuth
- More evidence that Attytood's Republican toadies understand "real America." --snip-- A new Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday negates all of those beliefs. Here was the question that was asked about torture -- note that it's phrased in the most pro-torture manner possible, because it is grounded in the ludicrous, 24-clichéd "ticking time bomb" excuse that is the most commonly used argument by torture advocates: Q. Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects? By a wide margin -- 58-40% -- Americans say that torture should never be used, no matter the circumstances. Let's repeat that: "no matter the circumstance." That margin is enormous among Democrats (71-28%) and substantial among independents (56-43%). As usual these days, Republicans hold the minority view, but even among them there is substantial categorical opposition to torture (42-55%). Moreover, a majority of Americans (53-42%) favor the closing of Guantanamo, with large support among Democrats (68%) and independents (55%). Even more significantly, a very solid majority of those favoring the closing of Guantanamo recognize exactly what ought to be done with detainees who the government believes are guilty of terrorism-related crimes -- it's exactly what the ACLU and civil libertarians generally urge be done:— Talking point sleuth
- You know, I really have to give Attytood's Republican toadies credit. They constantly insulted and demeaned Michelle Obama prior to the election - and in doing so, they sure showed that they have their finger on the pulse of the American public. --snip-- Forty-six percent of those surveyed say they have a favorable opinion of Michelle Obama, while just seven percent say their opinion is not favorable. An additional 45 percent are undecided or do not have an opinion. Compare that with first ladies past: Laura Bush had a 30 percent favorable rating when she entered the White House, while Hillary Clinton's favorable rating stood at 38 percent. Barbara Bush's favorable rating at the start of her husband's term was 34 percent, and Nancy Reagan's was 28 percent.— Talking point sleuth
- Yippee!! The world is torture free!!!!! Sounds like a line from Willie Wonka's chocolate factory.— Norton
- Comment removed.
- NV Lt Gov. Brian Krolicki by David Taffet on Mon 15 Dec 2008 06:49 AM CST Not to be outdone by the selling of a Senate seat by the Democratic governor of Illinois, the Republican Lt. Governor of Nevada, Brian Krolicki, has been indicted on four felony charges of misappropriating state funds. His chief of staff was indicted on two counts of misappropriation and falsification.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} "We have direct access...I can call [Mr. Goeglein], he'll take my concern to the president and get back to me in 24 hours. {{{ --- Wow! Now I see why Attytood's Republican toadies were so upset about Rev. Wright and Geithner's temporary oversight on his taxes. Because they are so concerned about the ethics of our political leaders. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- LOL!! Yet another leading conservative. You know one of those "family values" dudes that George Bush relied on for moral counseling. --snip-- DENVER - Disgraced evangelical leader Ted Haggard's former church disclosed Friday that the gay-sex scandal that caused his downfall extends to a young male church volunteer who reported having a sexual relationship with Haggard — a revelation that comes as Haggard tries to repair his public image. --snip -- Haggard is well-connected politically, having often met with President Bush and his staff at the White House. In a Wall Street Journal story dated August 13, 2004, Haggard told reporter Elizabeth Bernstein that he participates in "a weekly conference call...that's led by Tim Goeglein, the White House's liaison to the conservative community, and includes prominent religious leaders. 'We have direct access,'" Haggard told Bernstein. "I can call [Mr. Goeglein], he'll take my concern to the president and get back to me in 24 hours." According to Haggard, "The weekly conference call with the White House" allows him to give the administration "the pulse of the evangelical world."— Talking point sleuth
- Yet another Republican indicted --snip-- ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Joseph Bruno, the former majority leader of the New York Senate and for a time the most powerful Republican in state politics, was indicted Friday on federal corruption charges. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- bohic, did you forgive bush for letting us be attacked on 9/11? How about getting 4,200 soldiers killed for nothing in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Or for letting Al-qaida in Iraq come into being when it did not exist before we invaded there? Love yo loonies who beleive that bush was some god that kept us safe, when, in reality, he's caused more deaths of Americans than the terrorists. He had also usurped our Constitution and wrecked our economy. The terrorists couldn't have asked for more. But keep on believing your myths.— mike l
You can never insure that the guilty will be punished or that the innocent will be set free in any system. I think the morality comes with the system set up not the results - people will make mistakes but a system that is administered equally meets my moral standard. The problem is we are dealing with an area that we can "criminalize" but is really an act of war. Because most of us feel our system of justice and protections for the innocent is the best we immediately want to use that system in all instances but much as it is argued that we don't want to torture because we than expect our enemies not to torture do we then want acts of war prosecuted as criminal cases? I doubt many Japanese pilots would have received a fair trial in Hawaii circa 1943 and no U.S. soldier would have received a fair trial in Iraq while Hussein was still in power. So they are not criminals but they don't meet the definition of a POW either since they do not represent a country and are not fighting in uniform. Tough call but I would simply leave it in the militaries hands because while not perfect they are best suited for the trials.— bird11- I'm not sure but isn't it all but impossible to be aquitted by military tribunal? Especially a foreigner not in the US military. I guess considering what they are accused of you really can't worry about whether it would be fare or not. The only thing I don't like about it is there is bound to be some basically innocent people (perhaps in a very bad place at the worst time)out of those 250 people. Even if it's one innocent person dying or getting incarcerated for life over little or nothing, it bothers me. I guess you need some rules to protect our way of life but should we abandon morality to do so? Tough question.— James TL
- James TL - good point. That is the problem with dealing with something we had no point of reference or system set up for in this country. The Supreme Court ruling I am aware of prior to 2001 would have them tried by a military tribunal and that to me is the most sensible way. I believe the number of unlawful combatents is currently at about 250 (Gitmo only since obviously the idea of "secret" CIA detention centers is to keep them "secrets"). That number doesn't concern me as a budget buster for care and feeding. I assume of that number slightly over 90% would be found guilty in a Military Tribunal while that number would be less in civilian courts. The real problem is what do you do with those not found guilty? Return them to where we got them, get a third country to accept them, and then same problem continues with those found guilty if they are not executed - their sentences will eventually run out. There are no easy answers I guess we could ask Britian what they are doing with H-Block not that "the troubles" are over in Ireland.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Bird11; What would you do with them then? Keep them in jail for life? I was going to ask if that was even legal but I suppose since these people aren't POWs I guess it might be. Seems like cruel and inhuman punishment to me to keep someone in jail for years without resolution. I know what some of them are accused of could also be considered cruel and inhuman. Should we have to pay taxes to take care of these people?— James TL
- sorry. ...Not entirely unlike.....— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} TPS if you want to dispute the ABC report in defense of Obama continuing the bombings feel free - I support the President's action. {{{--- Lighten up, birdie - I support the drone attacks in Pakistan, and did under the Bush administration. Check the archives, I advocated a stronger hand in Afghanistan months ago, and argued with that weenie Mr. Smith about it (he whined and whined about the dangers of not supporting the fascist Musharraf. You know Musharraf, right? The dude who appeased Islamist forces in his country for years even as he took our money - not entirely like the Pakistani leaders who essentially founded Muslim extremism, with our support, because they wanted to use the extremists to fight India).— Talking point sleuth
- TPS thought you would be able to understand a joke since you are one.— bird11
- ---}}} And finally remember most U.S. juries are composed of people too dumb to find O.J. guilty of murder? {{{--- Wow. So, not only do you have no faith in our judicial system to handle the complications, you also have no respect for the American public? One might think that as a result, you believe in putting blind faith in our leaders and simply abdicating any responsibility at the first sign of danger. "Daddy Cheney, daddy Cheney, please torture those bad men and make them go away. And, I need a diaper change when you get done."— Talking point sleuth
- "---}}} Under Bush, the drone bombing attacks killed 8 of the top 20 al qaeda leaders who were hiding in Pakistan. {{{--- Good point, birdie. And, in fact, they killed the #2 guy, like, 6 or 7 times if I'm not mistaken." TPS if you want to dispute the ABC report in defense of Obama continuing the bombings feel free - I support the President's action.— bird11
- James TL - civilian trials are very tricky. First who has jurisdiction? Has the Federal gov't already blown the speedy trial? How many civilian prosecutors have the knowledge/security clearance to handle such a case? While I'm sure the risk to national security and need to protect assets will be overblown - there is still some things we would not want disclosed in open court or available in discovery. Do we let the guilty go to protect those interest? And finally remember most U.S. juries are composed of people too dumb to find O.J. guilty of murder?— bird11
- ---}}} ...its better than paying them $1 bil a year and having them do nothing,which is what happened for about 5 years. {{{--- Not true, RG. They haven't been doing nothing. They suspended civil rights, declared Marshall law, disbanded the court system, continued to funnel money towards fat cats even as millions of Pakistani's living in poverty were, accordingly, influenced to support terrorists. I wouldn't call that nothing.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Under Bush, the drone bombing attacks killed 8 of the top 20 al qaeda leaders who were hiding in Pakistan. {{{--- Good point, birdie. And, in fact, they killed the #2 guy, like, 6 or 7 times if I'm not mistaken.— Talking point sleuth
- lan1122 - AMEN!!— bird11
- If terrorists want to attack they will. They attack their own people, and don't care whether Bush or Obama is President. It wasn't Bush's fault and it won't be Obama's fault if it happens. Safer under a certain president? Don't think so. There are too many terrorists in the US now. Let's all hope another 9/11 does not happen under ANY president. Whether you like him or not. Place blame where it belongs, on the nutjobs that have no regard for life.— lan1122
- I doubt very much that any of the 'worst of the wost' will be set free. They will be interned in some other maximum security facility. Frankly I wish they would just try these people and get it over with. If they are found guilty of terrorismm then execute them. If there isn't enough evidence to convict them then let them go (That last part is the tricky part. I believe these people should still be monitored by our spy agencies).— James TL
- msl-you are correct. Pakistan has no control over that region so they are letting us do the dirty work. Could this arrangement have been worked out by Bush with the Pakistanis through diplomatic relations and probaly a boatload of cash??— bird11
- Bird (and others), you have identified the real issue here. What are we going to do with these knuckleheads that were at Gitmo now? I'm hoping that some general somewhere puts in a policy to not take prisoners, because now we have no idea what the heck to do with them. Oh wait, I have an idea -- force them to watch 100 hours of "The West Wing"... Now THERE'S torture for you!!— IggleFan68
- Comment removed.
bird, Pakistan would have standing to file a formal complaint to the UN, but as far as I know they haven't. While Pakistani leaders publicly protest (mostly to appease their own constituents), I think it's fair to suspect that they are secretly cooperating with our drone missions.- Pagoda - 2 things: First, here's what the policy states: " organizations must agree to neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in OTHER NATIONS." My emphasis added. So really what this does, is prevent government funding from going to global healthcare companies. Ok -- so what? They can't get funding from some other country? Why does it have to be us? BTW -- That organization could promote and perform abortions in THIS country all they wanted and still receive funding.— IggleFan68
- Swifty: You see this is the way to fight terrorists once it's necessary to use force against them. You don't need to invade the whole country as we did in Iraq. best way to fight on an every day level is to use spy and police work.— James TL
- "Killing the enemy is good. Giving them access to our court system? Not good. Bad." The courts would determine if they were our enemy or not. some being detained were not captured on the battlefield,but rather taken off the streets of a foreign country. If we have proof, then a trial shouldnt be a problem. Otherwise, I'd prefer that my tax dollars not provide three hots and a cot to foreigner citizens indefinitely.— RG
- Where will the terrorist go? "The Europeans are torn between living up to their rhetoric of the last eight years, in which they condemned the prison, and now having to accept suspected terrorists whom former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to as the "worst of the worst. "Here we have the first example of how this new Obama politics will demand more of Europe -- not less -- than Bush's so-called unilateralism," said Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who declined to add Italy to the list of nations willing to accept inmates. "America will probably ask some European countries to take in these people, who will no longer be at Guantanamo but won't be free to wander the streets of New York."— bird11
- Comment removed.
- "RG, so you're fine now with attacking a sovereign nation who never attacked us? Just trying to understand what you 'believe' today." Haven't changed at all, i supported it when bush did it. pakistan has not be an ally, they dont seal their borders or do anything to discourage the crossings and subsequent attacks. i've argued this with db before. its better than paying them $1 bil a year and having them do nothing,which is what happened for about 5 years. and i like how you skipped over the part about differentiating between a full scale invasion and occupation and a rocket attack. why be intellectually honest when you can spew hate?— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Hamlet - you do realize I am defending Obama continuing the bombing which he clearly has continued. It is a good idea even if Bush did it, you need to accept the fact that bush did some good - more good in my eyes than yours but some regardless - if you refuse to accept that simple fact then you are just a hater. As for the 8 of 20 - reported in defense of Obama's bombings today by ABC news. Here is link and start of story: (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6718124&page=1) "The CIA's bombing campaign against al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan continued with two more attacks today, an indication, senior officials say, that President Barack Obama has approved the U.S. strategy that has killed at least eight of al Qaeda's top 20 leaders since July 2008."— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I heard that under Bush, every day the drones made a trip to candy mountain and brought back spoils for all the lucky soldiers in Afghanistan.— pagoda
- Guess I wasn't paying attention. I didn't know we were drone bombing in Pakistan. as I've said I think this is a good thing. George Bush deserves credit for implimenting it and Obama deserves credit for continuing a good policy. Continue the good policies. Throw out the bad.— James TL
- And let me be perfectly clear here while Bush was killing 8 of the top 20 al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan he was clearly violating international law. Today when Obama continued bombing he clearly violated international law. Guess what?? I don't care both cases have and will make America safer.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- "Seriously, how do you clowns look at yourselves in the mirror?" Can you breath and post at the same time,b.atk? Do you really not see the difference between Iraq, a nation not connected to 9/11 and with no ties to AQ, vs. Pakistan, Afganistan's neighbor where AQ and the Taliban constantly crosses borders? Do you not understand the difference between a trillion dollar invasion and occupation that displaced hundreds of thousands vs a rocket strike? Keep rooting against America, hatemonger.— RG
- "Under Bush, the drone bombing attacks killed 8 of the top 20 al qaeda leaders..." According to who? Why the Bush administration, of course. And we all know they never lie.— Hamlet
- Swifty, what's even more appalling is that there's not even any oil rights to negotiate in Waziristan. What a colossal waste of a drone missile, eh?
- Under Bush, the drone bombing attacks killed 8 of the top 20 al qaeda leaders who were hiding in Pakistan. Just thought I'd throw that up here since you may have missed it in all the MSM coverage of the good things Bush did to make America safer.— bird11
- PA English I'll put the Navy Seals up against any force in the world.— Ramon
- PA English I'll put the Navy Seals up against any force in the world.— Ramon
- Comment removed.
- Iggles- Our tax dollars were only permitted to go where abortion was not even allowed to be mentioned. Countries and clinics proved to the US that any abortion counseling or performing would be funded entirely by non US tax payer money. Bush said no. Eat cake with your cancer and forced or unwanted pregnancies. Eat cake with your prenatal care requests. Not as cut and dry as you make it.— pagoda
- Republicans: good on defense, or is that Depends?— Hamlet
- So, let me get this straight. Batty soils his diapers in fear at the prospect that we're shutting down Gitmo and no longer going to torture prisoners, but cries foul that we dared attack al Qaeda in Pakistan? Yep, nothing's changed here.
- I'd put a Deta Force Team up against an SAS team anyday.— Hamlet
- Pagoda -- this was a policy instituted by Reagan, continued by Bush 1, discontinued by Clinton, reinstituted by Bush 3, now discontinued by Obama. It had nothing to do with Bush 2 trying to move the country further to the right -- it already had been there 12 - 20 years ago. Why do these institutions that promote "women's health" need to do anything in another country? And why does it need government funding (your and my money??)— IggleFan68
- "Actually the best trained soldiers in the world are the British" That's what you guys said in 1776 too....how'd that turn out?— legatus
- b.atkinson- (insert name calling here) The "Messiah" comment was old and blasphemous the day Rush first taught it to you. Second, Bush was not blamed for 9/11; for at least several months. And are you being sarcastic when you question attacking a sovereign nation? So you can pick and choose which laws to break or bend when it comes to the war on terror? How convenient.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- Actually the best trained soldiers in the world are the British , Our training is longer , tougher and standards are higher , sadly we are also the worst equipped .— PAEnglish
- So, when a Dem is elected from a conservative district (see 2006 election for details) yet continually casts liberal votes, you'll give this "traitor the boot", Hamlet?— legatus
- The Mexico City ban is akin to bombing a Planned Parenthood. Many don't perform abortions, some may not advise abortions, but all focus on free or affordable women's health. The one in my hometown got bombed- they don't perform abortions, but they are one of Pennsylvania's largest providers of free cancer screenings for women. Who cares about women's health, bombs away! The Republican policy punished millions of women in peril because abortion was allowed to be discussed. Our military discusses "the bomb", doesn't mean they want to drop one. GW widened the ban to include most forms of family planning- was premarital sex the boogieman here, who knows? If the Republicans only cared about abortion, it would better service them to stop lumping in premarital sex and birth control. Besides, the Republicans have no problem dealing with China, a country that actively FORCES abortions.— pagoda
- Grassroots Dem strategy: get in the majority first and then give the traitors the boot. And by that I don’t mean people who vote against the party, we are cool with that, I mean the ones who vote against wishes of their constituency.— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- TPD, I was speaking of citizens, not congress critters. Most Dem congress critters are two-faced liars. They talked and talked and talked, until they got elected, and then they licked W's boots.— Hamlet
- Good answer Bohica; I like the word "responsible".— pagoda
- Actually pagoda, now organizations that arrange for or promote abortions in other countries can now receive gov't funding. I don't understand this one at all. Why do Americans need to pay for some organization to advertise abortions in another country??? Regardless of whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life -- WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR THIS???— IggleFan68
- "are all seals tortured then" Review descriptions of BUDS training (Navy SEAL bootcamp)and then ask that question. The average person is not capable of enduring what a SEAL can endure. Most current US service members could not pass the initial tests for SEAL and Delta Force, nevermind go thrugh BUDS.— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- Pagoda’s right. We were united until the Bush administration started pushing those obvious lies about Iraq (WMD, mushroom clouds over Manhattan, SH responsible for 911 attacks, etc.) and insisting we had to invade. If Obama tried to pull something like that you’d see Dems line up to condemn him. Too bad Republicans aren’t the free-thinking people Democrats are. Most Repubs are still arguing that Bush was right to lie us into a tragic and unnecessary war. This astounds me.— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- Fisher- Don't forget overturning "Mexico City." Condoms can be distributed to unmarried people once again! Welcome to the 20th century.— pagoda
- Bohica- Sorry for name calling. What you WROTE was disgusting- I guess I should have written that instead of writing YOU were disgusting. So you are blaming Bush for 9/11? I'm not sure I'd even go there. Good for you.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- Terrorist beware, its ok to be one. Carter Administration Part II has begun. Give you enemy’s courage, the reason you hate us hasn’t changed. Secondly, day one for Reagan saw 52 release hostages and massive legislation pushed into Congress. Bush Sr. enacted tough laws on those using or selling drugs. Clinton met people and didn’t sing anything, but contemplated it. Bush Jr issued directives to every executive department with authority over environmental issues, and orders them to immediately put on hold dozens of regulations passed by the Clinton administration. LBJ & Nixon accomplished the most in their first days. However, Obama signed a single act and the press is elated.— Fisher
- b.atkinson- I get your irony, but these drone attacks have been going on for several months. Difference is, Obama has been more vocal about our need to be less accommodating toward the Pakistanis. Democrats weren't blaming Bush for 9/11 until he started to use it as an excuse to destroy all good will and the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. I still get chills thinking about the joint session of Congress, addressed by Bush on the hardest of days that September. We were not partisans that day, and many many days afterwards. The initial attacks on Afghanistan were overwhelmingly supported by both sides. It wasn't until he lied about WMD and Sadam's ties to 9/11 that Dems really jumped ship. If Obama lies us into a war I hope the same thing happens to him.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- No Lobbyists! Well, maybe just a couple. But that's it!!— A Friend
- "LOL! Obama has clearly established that he's going to be more available to press than Bush ever was." Unless, apparently, they throw him a hardball question. And it was highly relevant - Obama is already breaking his own rule about hiring former lobbyists. But go ahead and wave your Obama-pom-poms. Even Will seems to have tired of his.— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- And the Gitmo prisoners are going to be held where!!!!! They are going to be tried when!!!!! We are rewarding them for what!!!!!— frankf
- TEAR DOWN THIS MYTH: "Although the number of viewers watching the presidential inauguration coverage of Barack Obama was impressive, they fall short of those who saw Ronald Reagan take the oath of office for his first term in 1981. According to Nielsen Media Research, 37.8 million television viewers tuned in Tuesday to watch the swearing-in ceremony, which was the largest inaugural audience in 28 years. Reagan's first inauguration in 1981 drew a whopping 41.8 million. Obama's viewership was, however, 27 percent higher than Bill Clinton's in 1993, and 30 percent higher than George W. Bush's in 2001. Bush’s swearing-in for his second term in 2005 was the lowest viewing audience (15.5 million) for a presidential inauguration. Obama's figures include telecasts on 17 broadcast and cable networks, while Reagan’s swearing-in ceremony nearly three decades ago could only be seen on ABC, CBS and NBC." Reagan still tops with the people!!!— bird11
- Comment removed.
- And before all of you get the chance to say, "Well, if we don't believe the war is a just war, we have the right to protest it", consider these facts. Large portions of the population did not support getting involved in: Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII... Is there any doubt now that those were good causes? Is it possible that we can't see if a war is a good cause during the time it is happening? I don't argue against accountability, and I don't believe in giving a President a blank check. But when we, as a nation, through our President and Congress have decided to go to war, we need to support that effort. If we find (as always happens in wars because no one has ever fought a perfect one) that the mission needs to change -- then debate about the change of mission. A great example of this, to me, is -- "More troops need to be in Afghanistan then in Iraq". We are debating mission, not whether we need to pull our troops out.— IggleFan68
- James TL - we have been bombing with drones in that area for about 6-9 months. I think it is a great thing to do and I really don't think Palistan cares but they protest just to protest. Pakistan national government has no control over that region anyhow. I imagine most of the people complaining about the act today aren;t truly outraged at the attack but are outraged that it is suddenly OK to attack into a soveriegn country that has not attacked the U.S. IMHO this was a good policy that Bush probably should have initiated sooner and maybe he would have if he had the unified support to do so.— bird11
- Pagoda -- I'm not insulting you, and I don't think that this is partisan rhetoric. As the President of the country, and the commander in chief, one of significant metrics in a war CANNOT be the casualty count. And compared to every other war we were in (except Kuwait), the American death toll from this war is UNBELIEVABLY LOW. The military objective in a war is generally to decimate your enemies ability to make war and their willingness to fight. The ONLY way America can ever lose a war (because no one out there can destroy our ability to make war) is to cause us to lose our willingness to fight. Since our troops are the best equipped, best trained warriors in the world, you aren't going to demoralize them, so you have to aim across the ocean at..... THE DEMOCRATS. Because the Democrats will do for you what you cannot do. They will create such political strife that they cause the country to lose it's willingness to fight. Our enemies KNOW THIS!! They believe that any time any significant amount of American blood is spilled, the liberals in America scream bloody murder and want our brave soldiers to go home because we clearly aren't tough enough to take a few deaths. Why don't Democrats know this? Why do they continually engage in behavior that can only strengthen our enemies will, and demoralize our own troops?— IggleFan68
- It's a bout time someone attacked Al Qaeda based in Pakistan. How many years have we been paying off Pakistan to deal with this ruthless group of hate filled filth? Has anything been donw up to now? I Know Pakistan didn't attack us but this is not a full scale occupation. Our goal after 9/11 was to hunt down and kill or arrest those the perpetrated that cowardly attack. We seemed to forget about that goal back in 2003 and I for one are glad to get back to what should be, aside from fixing the economy the number one goal of our foreign policy.— James TL
How interesting to see some of you lefty posters practically begging conservatives not to treat Obama the way you treated Bush. It's almost as if these lackeys don't understand how they've poisoned the well. In spite of their hateful behavior I really see Republicans giving this guy a chance. A chance Democrats never offered to George Bush.— ocjones- "Just as Clinton terror policies resulted in 9/11, and Bush policies resulted in no terror attacks here in over 7 years..." Okay, I'm trying keep up: 911 is Clinton's fault and Bush kept us safe from attack seven of his eight years in office, right? How has cognitive dissonance not caused your head to explode?— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- James , totaly agree with your last post— PAEnglish
- I'm not an Obama fan simply because I dont like socialists , lived in a country with them in charge , its not pretty . That said an attack on the US is an attack on all of 'us'. The attack on 9/11 hit every race creed and social position in this country , and it is up to everybody not just the government to remain vigilant . I also have to agree with several posters on here that the liberals did seem to take great pleasure in the deaths of US service personel in Iraq and several politicians , Pelosi , Reed , Murtha and that fool Biden used those deaths to try to score political points .— PAEnglish
- I certainly hope Bush had what was right for the country in mind when he made his decisions. That's his job after all. Not going to comment further on that because it would be just my opinion and wouldn't be based on facts. Igglefan; You are right. Both sides do this. Both sides are wrong to do so. I don't however think there is anything wrong with keeping a tally on how many soldiers are being killed or injured in a war. You say republicans don't root for casualties. I'll hold you and all people on the GOP side of this accountable for that should their be a war over the next 4 years. Seems like the only thing you can expect in this political gamesmanship is that both sides will accuse the other and vice versa almost assuring that nothing useful will get done. That's why progress always seems to go so slowly.— James TL
- Philadelphia's murder rate almost outpaced military deaths in Iraq!! Where was the outrage there??? Almost??? Tell that to the extra 2000 dead GIs and their families during that period. Reading the posts here today, IGGLES, you are sadly wrong about your fellow Republicans; they are clearly licking their chops for a tragedy to blame on Obama. You guys are sure giving a sitting President a lot of responsibility, interesting though how Bush didn't get that responsibility for 9/11. Was that because he is an idiot???— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- James TL - I can't agree more but unfortunately that is politics. Have no idea who started it - if you said it started with the R's impeaching Clinton, I'd counter with it started with the D's pushing for new taxes under Bush 41 and then uses the tax increase against him in the next election, and you could probably name something from the Carter years, etc, etc, etc. The point is I give credit to Obama for this move not because I think it is correct but because it could prove to be political suicide. And while you and I may disagree with decisions Bush made I personally believe that Bush made decisions which he felt would be good for the country.— bird11
- James TL -- everything that you just said EASILY applies to what the libs/dems have done over the last 8 years. Except that the Dems upped it to include hoping Americans got killed by the dozens over in Iraq. You will never see conservatives rooting for more American deaths. I have never seen such bs in my life as the daily tally count of American deaths blared on every newspaper and tv station. And the reality?? 4000 KIA's is NOTHING compared to the carnage that went on in Vietnam, Iwo Jima, Gettysburg, AND THE STREETS OF PHILADELPHIA during that same exact time!!! Philadelphia's murder rate almost outpaced military deaths in Iraq!! Where was the outrage there???— IggleFan68
- (11:30 post, take 2.)Bohica- "When we get attacked and we will, your darn right I am going to blame Barrack Hussien Obama. 100% his fault. May God have mercy on his soul because I won't." You are disgusting. PERIOD. I have no doubt you are waiting on pins and needles for a significant attack on American soil. I have no doubt you will welcome the deaths of countless Americans just to prove your ridiculous point. It is all partisan waste. If Clinton would have created Gitmo and sponsored domestic spying and torture I am also certain you would be calling him a treasonous coward. You are the same people who accused Democrats of rooting for terrorists in Iraq. Can you now see the silliness of your argument? You let the terrorists win by compromising the very things that anger them.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- Considering the fact that the extreme right wing posters on here will not blame Bush for 9/11 (they blame Clinton even though he left office almost 9 months before that day) I don't think it's fair to blame Obama if an attack happens until at least the same amount of time has passed. Frankly his blame game is foolish. Don't care who makes us safe (I didn't feel safer under Bush but the facts are that we haven't been attacked since 9/11) as long as National Security is upheld. This is NOT a partisan issue (or it shouldn't be). It's what's right for all Americans.— James TL
- ---}}} Gee TPS with sweet talk like that I can only imagine that your significant other is a very understanding person. {{{--- Gotta admit, birdie, she's a saint to put up with me.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- "Sort of like you libs who rooted for Al Qada to win in Iraq so that George Bush could look bad, huh?" It's like you read my 11:30 post, if it was printed. But nice to see you think attacks in Iraq are the same as attacks on American soil. That being the case, I guess Bush wasn't so good at protecting us. Right?— pagoda
- Gee TPS with sweet talk like that I can only imagine that your significant other is a very understanding person.— bird11
- ---}}} realize many don't like my posts, but is that why they don't show up? {{{--- Try eliminating homoerotic/scatological references and re-posting.— Talking point sleuth
- realize many don't like my posts, but is that why they don't show up?— pagoda
- The republican basic game plan for the next 4 years will be to hope Obama will fail in his goals. That way they might be able to get back to (at least) 2006 levels in Congress by 2010 and then retake the WH in 2012. This partisan BS is what is killing this country. The GOP (and their minions, some of whom post reguarly here) will do anything and everything to make this happen. I know that some people hoped the same thing would happen to Bush. They were wrong just like the GOP is going to be. Why can't people realize that compromise is the only way to really succeed as a country. Hoping for failure is cowardly.— James TL
- I got that, birdie. Sorry that my using your quote in my comment was misleading. Essentially, you were agreeing with me. You were acknowledging that regardless of it's merit, Obama would be blamed. In that sense, you are not a full-fledged Republican toady. More like a toady in training, I'd say.— Talking point sleuth
- And TPS - if you ever bother to read and comprehend a full post instead of just cutting and pasting (no wonder you love bunch) the points you want to cite out of context you would see that my post gave Obama credit for having the guts to make such a decision - one that he knows can be second guessed.— bird11
- I think Gitmo is down on the list of things to do first while in office -- the economy and that BIG tax break I am suppose to get should be a littel higher on the agenda -- i guess FOCA will be the next thing he signs. America cannot "torture" terroist, but killing babies who survive abortions is an acceptable practice?— reddog44
- Read again, birdie ..."I should note, however, that birdie does crack open a little distance between him and the other Republican toadies by acknowledging that blaming any attacks on Obama could be 'right or wrong.'" Also, note, I said that "It wouldn't matter whether evidence showed that the attacks where the ramification of failed Bush policies." I'll accept your apology now.— Talking point sleuth
- "The story you've all been waiting for..." Um, no. To me, this was priority #100. Closing Gitmo is a purely political move with no real-world impact. How about doing something that starts positively impacting my 401k??— IggleFan68
- TPS - " The chance of attack is ever present and if AQ is ever successful again on U.S. soil this decision is going to be cited - rightly or wrongly" - obviously you are reading everything thru your Obama can do no wrong eyes again. I clearly state that tying any subsequent attack to this action may or may not be right. The toady you are however will only blame Bush's policies for the next attack even if it occurs 5 years from now.— bird11
- LOL! Obama has clearly established that he's going to be more available to press than Bush ever was. Yet, you Debby Downers have such a h*rd on for Obama that you're concluding, from the fact that he didn't want to answer questions during an informal visit to the press room, that we should "expect" a lack of access. LOL! Yet another of the long list of opinions you express that are obviously based on purely partisan interests. Let's have a wager, eh db? After for years of his presidency, will Obama have more press conferences than Bush did after his first four years? I say yay. What say you?— Talking point sleuth
- And here's the story we'll come to expect from Obama: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question. Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face. "Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."— db_cooper
- ---}}} . The chance of attack is ever present and if AQ is ever successful again on U.S. soil this decision is going to be cited - rightly or wrongly. {{{--- Here's what I find interesting. Republican toadies are lining up to admit that regardless of the relevant facts, they are going to blame any potential attacks in the U.S. on Obama's policies. Apparently, it wouldn't matter whether or not investigations proved that Obama's closing of GITMO or refusal to torture would have any relevance at all in the attacks. It wouldn't matter whether evidence showed that the attacks where the ramification of failed Bush policies. Nope. None of that matters. What would matter is whether or not the attacks could by used, cynically, to advance partisan political objectives. But thanks for putting your real thinking on display. (I should note, however, that birdie does crack open a little distance between him and the other Republican toadies by acknowledging that blaming any attacks on Obama could be "right or wrong.")— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} Obama's closing of Gitmo and ending "torture" (as defined by the left) will either result in us being attacked or not being attacked. {{{--- LOL! Here we have the thinking of an Attytood Republican toady on full display. Obviously, jmc's conceptualization of he full range of Bush's policies in the "GWOT" are holding prisoners in GITMO (many of whom for which there is no evidence of guilt), and using torture. That's it. No intelligence gathering by other means. No use of diplomacy. No influencing of geo-politics. No campaign for hearts and minds. Just holding prisoners and torture. Can I get a "just wow?"— Talking point sleuth
- While I completely disagree with the closing of Gitmo, I have to give Obama credit for some intestinal fortitude. The chance of attack is ever present and if AQ is ever successful again on U.S. soil this decision is going to be cited - rightly or wrongly. Worse for Obama would be any of the current detainees being involved in a future attack. Personally I think it will be a horrible mistake to allow these terrorist on U.S. soil - they will be able to recruit some of the mindless idiots we have in our prisons and will get first hand exposure to U.S. cities which may help in futuring attack plans.— bird11
- That's true Domenic. Generally accepted rules of war at the time were to use linear tactics. Men were lined up in rows and sent volleys of musketballs toward the enemy. Washington's men went against the unwritten "Geneva convention" by hiding behind rocks and trees, by using ambush tactics, etc.— legatus
- Hey LJL, something tells me that Washington's men back in 1777-1781 would have stopped at nothing and used any means necessary to go after Islamic lunatics who were hell-bent on mudering them and their families. Somewhere along the way, pansies were introduced to this country...— Domenic
The good thing about what Obama is doing here is that it will produce quantifiable results. Just as Clinton terror policies resulted in 9/11, and Bush policies resulted in no terror attacks here in over 7 years, Obama's closing of Gitmo and ending "torture" (as defined by the left) will either result in us being attacked or not being attacked. Time will tell. I will give Obama credit for three full days without a terror attack on his watch. Way to go, BHO!— jmc- ---}}} thank you for the thoughtful reply, tps {{{--- No probs, fake me. And btw, we all "misclick" every now and then. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} By the way, it was quite funny watching the Fresh Prince have to ask Greg Craig to tell him what he was actually signing, then repeating it as if Craig was the Invisible Man and nobody could hear him. {{{--- Classic. Republican toadies would much rather have a president who doesn't confirm accuracy before taking action. You know, like launching an invasion that results in a loss of American prestige worldwide, tens of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, a recruitment bonanza for terrorists, a training ground for terrorists so they can be more effective in killing Americans elsewhere, etc. -- snip -- Obama explained each order before he put his pen to them and occasionally solicited input from White House counsel Greg Craig to make sure he was describing them correctly. --snip-- Keep it up, toadies. What's Obama's approval rating, 85% and growing? The more you whine, the more popular he gets. Hmmm. You think there might be a connection?— Talking point sleuth
- "Help me out here. Has dear mr. ocjones ever posted anything at Attytood that didn't essentially boil down to the "But they did it first, mommy" line of reasoning?".....Simply illustrating, once again, the hypocricy of some of the left wing lackeys here.— ocjones
- Comment removed.
- Hey, Will, did I miss something, or was there no mention of extraordinary renditions in any of these Orders? Maybe that's because Leon Panetta was knee-deep in the escalation of this practice during the Clinton years, not that we'd have known that if the Inquirer/Daily News was our only source of information. If renditions will continue, your sanctimonious commentary about no more torture is merely semantics.— Mike K
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- So this is what it feels like to have the world "love" us again....OK, then. Let's see how much the world loves us when we have to get into it with Iran.— jmc
- Comment removed.
RG & LJL - nicely done - until they give up their "party first" behavior they will always be traitors - a house divided can not stand gentlemen - or did you not realize that was what they and you were doing on their behalf as individuals.- Fake me, interesting article. My response is that if Obama pursues military action in Pakistan, or the "War on terra" in the same way as the Bush administration did - then I would agree with the article that Obama's stance on torture is likely little more than cynical political pandering. The reason I'm opposed to torture is that it is ineffective and counterproductive (in addition to being illegal, counter to historical American principles, and immoral). Denouncing torture without changing the other ineffective and counterproductive "GWOT" policies wouldn't be consistent. Let's see what happens under the Obama administration, and we'll talk.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} Sort of like you libs who rooted for Al Qada to win in Iraq so that George Bush could look bad, huh? (((--- Help me out here. Has dear mr. ocjones ever posted anything at Attytood that didn't essentially boil down to the "But they did it first, mommy" line of reasoning?— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- "Looks like you're taking a page from your hero rush, batty. rooting for us to get hit so you can blame libz. truly repulsive."...Sort of like you libs who rooted for Al Qada to win in Iraq so that George Bush could look bad, huh?— ocjones
- This is indeed good news - jihadists’ will now have to find another recruitment device. It's always a grand day when the rule of law prevails.— GreyHippie
- Looks like you're taking a page from your hero rush, batty. rooting for us to get hit so you can blame libz. truly repulsive.— RG
- So this is what it's like when you have an adult in the WH? Feels good, doesn't it? An America that denounces torture. Nice.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: