Liz Cheney Says Obama Siding With Terrorists [Archive]

Telefrog

05-13-2009, 09:14 AM

I thought about appending this to an existing thread, but what the Hell. I'll just let this one speak for itself (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/13/liz-cheney-suggests-obama-siding-with-terrorists/).

In an interview on Fox News, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney sharply criticized the new administration for agreeing to release photographs depicting alleged abuses at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration.

"I think it is really appalling that the administration is taking this step," she said in the interview. "Clearly what they are doing is releasing images that show American military men and woman in a very negative light."

"I have heard from families of service members from families of 9/11 victims this question about when did it become so fashionable for us to side, really, with the terrorists," she continued. "You know, President Obama has a lot of rhetoric about support for American military families, support for our men and women who are fighting for us overseas. But if he really cares about them, then he wouldn't be making such an effort to release photos that show them in a negative light."

The photos show them in a "negative light" because what they are doing is extremely negative. :mad:

Ancalagon

05-13-2009, 09:53 AM

Tinfoil hats people, wear your tinfoil hats.

This is what happens you dont - your democratically elected President turns into a Russian Muslim President who was personally responsible for 9/11. And is plotting the rise of communism in the USA while simultaneously diverting money from US taxpayers to help rebuild the Russian war machine, including trained attack squids.

National Kato

05-13-2009, 09:59 AM

These were images taken during the Bush/Cheney administration showing alledged abuses at U.S. prisons in warzones. Color me unsurprised that a Cheney is upset about their release. I'm sure she'd rather the nation and the world just conveniently forget about all of this stuff that happened during her father's tenure.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 10:15 AM

It's not the torture that upsets her, it's releasing photos of it. Great priorities.

Close your eyes and cover your ears and you can pretend it never happened!

National Kato

05-13-2009, 10:41 AM

I think this is relevant:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/194/soto932.jpg

:D

Hawkzombie

05-13-2009, 11:24 AM

I'm not going to condone the photos or what was done, but I will say they shouldn't have been released to the general public.

I dunno, it seems like this administration if far more worried about it's image than actually running the country. What happened during Bush/Cheney ...well there was a LOT of deplorable shit...but that's over and all it seems is like the new Administration is doing a job of searing it into everyone's mind's instead of moving forward. Yes, people need to be held accountable, but there is a time and place. When America needs to look good not only to the world, but to itself, you don't go releasing photos of military personal doing despicable shit.

It's just not wise. You undermine not only the military image around the world, but how the American people view them as well. I think they're doing it to show 'OMG how evil Bush and Cheney were' but instead I think it'll have a far more negative impact on American and military image instead, which is something I don't think the US can afford right now.

I'm just getting more and more fed up with what should be a presidency turning into a popularity contest. You won the election already...stop showing up on the cover of People Magazine and start running the damn country.

Kelegacy

05-13-2009, 11:24 AM

I think this is relevant:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/194/soto932.jpg

:D

The best kind of humor is the truth. Good find.

We've been in the clutches of a terrible administration for so long that some are simply confused and unable to tell right from wrong.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 11:46 AM

I'm not going to condone the photos or what was done, but I will say they shouldn't have been released to the general public.

I dunno, it seems like this administration if far more worried about it's image than actually running the country. What happened during Bush/Cheney ...well there was a LOT of deplorable shit...but that's over and all it seems is like the new Administration is doing a job of searing it into everyone's mind's instead of moving forward. Yes, people need to be held accountable, but there is a time and place. When America needs to look good not only to the world, but to itself, you don't go releasing photos of military personal doing despicable shit.

You act like the rest of the world doesn't know what's been happening. They know. Our allies know. Our enemies know. Hiding the evidence and pretending it wasn't as bad is it really was helps no one, it just makes America look like we have no respect for our ideals. When America makes mistakes it is not enough to just say "Oh, sorry, we won't do it again." Only by opening up the dark closets can we prevent future abuses by revealing the true horror of what was done in our name. There is nothing to be gained by secrecy. The cover up would be worse than the crime.

05-13-2009, 11:51 AM

Only by opening up the dark closets can we prevent future abuses by revealing the true horror of what was done in our name.
Is there any evidence for this assertion? Because prisoner abuses have been well-publicized in the past, yet they still happen.

The cover up would be worse than the crime.
Please tell me you don't actually mean to say that refusing to release these photos is worse than actual torture.

CappinCanuck

05-13-2009, 11:55 AM

I'm not going to condone the photos or what was done, but I will say they shouldn't have been released to the general public.

I dunno, it seems like this administration if far more worried about it's image than actually running the country. What happened during Bush/Cheney ...well there was a LOT of deplorable shit...but that's over and all it seems is like the new Administration is doing a job of searing it into everyone's mind's instead of moving forward. Yes, people need to be held accountable, but there is a time and place. When America needs to look good not only to the world, but to itself, you don't go releasing photos of military personal doing despicable shit.

It's just not wise. You undermine not only the military image around the world, but how the American people view them as well. I think they're doing it to show 'OMG how evil Bush and Cheney were' but instead I think it'll have a far more negative impact on American and military image instead, which is something I don't think the US can afford right now.

Your logic is a bit topsy turvy dude, but no surprise there since there has generally been a concerted effort to confuse from political actors. Releasing the photos of the military personnel doing bad things actually boosts the US and military image. It goes to transparency and taking responsibility. Trust me, this is a good thing. The sooner the military is more transparent about the mistake and opening up any documentation regarding it, the better.

Nobody will be looking at this, whether American, European or other, as a basis for anti-Americanism. The incident's effect has already been had on US reputation/image, this is part of the process to lay it to rest.

Smart move from Obama actually to get on this so quickly.

Ancalagon

05-13-2009, 11:56 AM

Is there any evidence for this assertion? Because prisoner abuses have been well-publicized in the past, yet they still happen.

Although I cant cite anything to prove this, I believe that with the Geneva convention etc, the rights of prisoners of war are better protected than they were some decades ago. In fact, didnt the antics of Nazi Germany spur international treaties to prevent such behaviour? I dont think its any coincidence that we havent seen much use of chemical weapons like mustard gas since WWI.

Please tell me you don't actually mean to say that refusing to release these photos is worse than actual torture.

No, but I think denial makes whatever crime you committed worse than simply admitting it. In fact, isnt a criminal given the chance of a more lenient sentence if he pleads guilty, because he might be showing actual remorse?

Continuing to deny what has happened makes things worse, IMO.

Look at the reaction to MS's RROD fiasco. How much goodwill do you think they would have gained if they hadnt denied it for so long? How much goodwill do you think DemiGod gained by being upfront with responsibility for the early server downtime?

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 11:59 AM

Is there any evidence for this assertion? Because prisoner abuses have been well-publicized in the past, yet they still happen.

Revealing the abuses at Abu Ghraib stoppd further abuses at that prison, and likely elsewhere.

Is there evidence that just moving on and ignoring a problem ever improves the situation or stops it from happening again?

Please tell me you don't actually mean to say that refusing to release these photos is worse than actual torture.

It makes the initial crime worse. By resisting and preventing a fair judgment on the initial crime the system and those involved are compromised and corrupted. Should I be more accurate and say that the cover up increases the damage from the initial crime?

Hawkzombie

05-13-2009, 12:01 PM

I'm not saying it's not known, or even that it should be covered up to 'protect our interests'

The fact is it ALREADY is known, and a lot of it has either been seen, or very little is being shown with these photos that wasn't already either assumed, or 'generaly figured to have happened.' Does that make sense? It's sort of like...

Let's say you go to eat at a restaurant. Outside you've got a guy who says "Don't eat there, they found out today there's rat poop in all the soup" and shows you a picture of a rat pooping into a big pot of Split Pea. Fast forward 2 years later and you've got the guy again, out of nowhere, going "Hey, don't eat here. 2 years ago they had rats pooping in the soup" and he produces new photos.

You already knew the rats pooped in the soup, and those rats are answering for their crimes. Does it make sense to show new pictures when all it does is damage the overall image of the restaurant and NOT change anything? That was the point I was trying to make. These things should be made public, but the fact they're only coming out as they are seems suspicious to me at best.

It probably won't backfire, and just make the republican party look as dumb as the democratic party has been for the past X amount of years, or it could have an underlying backlash...I don't know either way. I just think it's things like this that should be handled a slightly different way...unless they're charging more people for the crimes committed then is there really a reason to release these images publically aside from trying to shed republicans in a negative light?

I also disagree with her saying he's 'siding with terrorists' as much as I disagree with people calling Bush Hitler. It's stupid and uneducated.

johnperkins21

05-13-2009, 12:04 PM

What happened at Auschwitz ...well there was a LOT of deplorable shit...but that's over and all it seems is like Spielberg is doing a job of searing it into everyone's mind's instead of moving forward. Yes, people need to be held accountable, but there is a time and place.

What happened to Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman ...well there was a LOT of deplorable shit...but that's over and all it seems is like the prosecution is doing a job of searing it into everyone's mind's instead of moving forward. Yes, people need to be held accountable, but there is a time and place.

This is fun. :p

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 12:07 PM

I'm not saying it's not known, or even that it should be covered up to 'protect our interests'

The fact is it ALREADY is known, and a lot of it has either been seen, or very little is being shown with these photos that wasn't already either assumed, or 'generaly figured to have happened.' Does that make sense? It's sort of like...

If it's already known then where is the harm in showing the pictures?

It probably won't backfire, and just make the republican party look as dumb as the democratic party has been for the past X amount of years, or it could have an underlying backlash...I don't know either way. I just think it's things like this that should be handled a slightly different way...unless they're charging more people for the crimes committed then is there really a reason to release these images publically aside from trying to shed republicans in a negative light?

Why do you persist in seeing this as a Democrat trying to embarass Republicans? This is not a political issue unless you try to see it that way. This is about showing people the truth, regardless of who was involved.

Conservatives are making a huge fuss about Nancy Pelosi's briefing, as if trying a Democrat in to the scandal will make Democrats back off. That may be true of certain congressional Democrats, but it's not true of others, nor of most citizens who are upset by this issue. We don't care who did it, we want anyone involved, and anyone involved in covering it up, whether they have a D or R next to their names, to pay the political or criminal penalty they are due.

05-13-2009, 12:08 PM

Releasing the photos of the military personnel doing bad things actually boosts the US and military image... Nobody will be looking at this, whether American, European or other, as a basis for anti-Americanism.
Well, that's certainly a courageous statement. I wish I had that much faith in anything.

Is there evidence that just moving on and ignoring a problem ever improves the situation or stops it from happening again?
No. But I don't believe I claimed it would.

It makes the initial crime worse. By resisting and preventing a fair judgment on the initial crime the system and those involved are compromised and corrupted. Should I be more accurate and say that the cover up increases the damage from the initial crime?
You're extending my point far further than I wish to do. I don't claim that we should cover up the abuses. But there's a difference between covering up abuses and publicizing photos of them. Indeed, if anything, publicizing these photos makes actually holding people to account harder: pretrial publicity can taint a jury pool and render a suspect untriable. There's a reason the ABA strongly discourages prosecutors from engaging in any more pretrial publicity than is immediately necessary to protect public safety.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 12:08 PM

This is fun. :p

I was trying not to Godwin the thread, but I guess it was inevitable.

Narradisall

05-13-2009, 12:10 PM

I think the saying about those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it seems appropriate.

johnperkins21

05-13-2009, 12:14 PM

I was trying not to Godwin the thread, but I guess it was inevitable.

I didn't necessarily mean to equate it to Nazi Germany, only to point out the absurdity of the idea that since something happened in the past, that there is no reason to ever bring it up in the future.

Even Obama said "it's in the past. Let's move forward." It's ridiculous. Crimes were committed, and they should be prosecuted. Why is it ok to take the "let's move forward" stance on these crimes? Somebody breaks into my house and kicks me in the nuts, I'm going to file charges. No way in hell I'll think two days later, well, that was in the past. Let's move forward.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 12:15 PM

You're extending my point far further than I wish to do. I don't claim that we should cover up the abuses. But there's a difference between covering up abuses and publicizing photos of them. Indeed, if anything, publicizing these photos makes actually holding people to account harder: pretrial publicity can taint a jury pool and render a suspect untriable. There's a reason the ABA strongly discourages prosecutors from engaging in any more pretrial publicity than is immediately necessary to protect public safety.

This issue goes far beyond comparison to a regular trial. You cannot accurately compare the two. There may be no trial if the issue isn't brought to the public's attention. If there is no public outcry and pressure on both Congress and the Executive Branch to pursue investigations and possible prosecutions than there is a good chance this will all get swept under the rug.

headhunter228

05-13-2009, 12:16 PM

I understand that there are things that the government does that the general public doesn't need to know about. But, as I've said before, what's the point in torturing prisoners? I'm glad he released the pictures, because torturing prisoners is despicable. There are more efficient ways to get information from captives, and if one is doing it for satisfaction, there's something wrong.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 12:17 PM

Even Obama said "it's in the past. Let's move forward." It's ridiculous. Crimes were committed, and they should be prosecuted. Why is it ok to take the "let's move forward" stance on these crimes? Somebody breaks into my house and kicks me in the nuts, I'm going to file charges. No way in hell I'll think two days later, well, that was in the past. Let's move forward.

Exactly. Obama is dragging his feet and resisting full disclosure, although not as much as some might like, I'm sure. He's wrong to do so, in my opinion. Claiming that this is some kind of hit job by Obama against Republicans is absurd. If Obama wanted to he could've had all this information, and more I'm sure, out there at any time.

Hawkzombie

05-13-2009, 12:18 PM

If it's already known then where is the harm in showing the pictures?

I suppose there isn't. But I just find it weird is all that all of a sudden they are releasing these images just because a democratic president is in charge now. Just as odd as it was when they weren't released when this all happened when a republican president was in charge. It's a two-way street, and I am just calling foul on the democrat part of it.

Why do you persist in seeing this as a Democrat trying to embarass Republicans? This is not a political issue unless you try to see it that way.

That's just it: this IS politically motivated. Are any new charges being filed? Has any new evidence in the existing charges been changed or amended due to these new photos? Or is it just 'proof' of how evil and vile the republican administration was? It's a smear campaign when there doesn't need to BE one. If the democrats were as obsessed with running the US as they were with 'improving their tarnished' image than I would've voted more democrats into office aside from Obama.

We don't care who did it, we want anyone involved, and anyone involved in covering it up, whether they have a D or R next to their names, to pay the political or criminal penalty they are due.

I 100% agree with you there. While I'm arguing the validity of showing the photos, if it results in more people being charged for what they did there, then excellent. Otherwise this just seems far more politically charged and image-centric than anything else.

Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't see the pictures. I'm saying their being released NOW is questionable and I'm wondering if it is in fact more politically motivated than simply 'finding the truth'...

I mean hell, it's politics...EVERYTHING is political...even if it doesn't appear that way on the surface. I'm not paranoid or out to get democrats (hell, I'm more of a democrat than I've ever been a republican) I'm just skeptical of EVERY politician. it's about image, but the democrats seem obsessed with that right now.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 12:37 PM

I suppose there isn't. But I just find it weird is all that all of a sudden they are releasing these images just because a democratic president is in charge now. Just as odd as it was when they weren't released when this all happened when a republican president was in charge. It's a two-way street, and I am just calling foul on the democrat part of it.

Perhaps the pictures weren't released before because the people in charge of releasing them didn't want them released? Bush didn't want evidence of detainee abuse released that would harm the reputation of his Administration and possibly lead to investigations and this is weird to you? Bush didn't release evidence of wrongdoing under his administration so Obama should follow his lead?

That's just it: this IS politically motivated. Are any new charges being filed? Has any new evidence in the existing charges been changed or amended due to these new photos? Or is it just 'proof' of how evil and vile the republican administration was?

Obama's been president for four months and we're just scratching the surface of the abuse and torture that happened under the Bush administration. Justice moves slow. There hasn't been an investigation yet but that doesn't mean there won't be one.

National Kato

05-13-2009, 12:38 PM

That's just it: this IS politically motivated. Are any new charges being filed?

Have any old charges been filed? You seem to think we've already finished dealing with this issue, when in fact we're still going through it. Bush refused to release the photos because he knew how bad and potentially illegal they were.

You seem outraged because you don't think our government is able to do more than one thing at a time. When, in fact, Obama is dealing with multiple issues left behind by the Bush administration. I'm not sure where you get your news, but it's not like Obama spends his days calling People magazine for cover ops, as if any President did that. Your complaints sound uninformed.

johnperkins21

05-13-2009, 12:42 PM

Perhaps the pictures weren't released before because the people in charge of releasing them didn't want them released? Bush didn't want evidence of detainee abuse released that would harm the reputation of his Administration and possibly lead to investigations and this is weird to you? Bush didn't release evidence of wrongdoing under his administration so Obama should follow his lead?

Didn't they also insinuate that the originally leaked photos were just a few bad eggs and that nothing like that had ever happened before or after? At least I think that was their original assertion.

Obama's been president for four months and we're just scratching the surface of the abuse and torture that happened under the Bush administration. Justice moves slow. There hasn't been an investigation yet but that doesn't mean there won't be one.

They also said that the files were in bad shape when they got there. Could have taken them a while to sort everything out. And given the state of the economy and the fact that we're in multiple wars with absolutely zero chance of ever being won, I'd imagine it wasn't their first priority.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 12:51 PM

Liz Cheney is in good company with the "LA LA LA I don't see any torture!" crowd.

Here was Peggy Noonan a few weeks ago, talking about the OLC memos, not even the pictures. (http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/peggy-noonan-regrets-release-of-torture-memos-some-of-life-has-to-be-mysterious/)

It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that.

So what bothers her is not the Bush Administration approved abuse and torture of detainees, but releasing information about it.

National Kato

05-13-2009, 12:58 PM

Besides, it wasn't even Obama requesting the release. It was the ACLU. Obama is ordering a stop to the release. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/index.html) So all this gnashing of teeth over Obama is, again, uninformed.

Johan

05-13-2009, 01:01 PM

National Kato

05-13-2009, 01:02 PM

You all better check your liberal echo-chamber notes on this issue;

Liz Cheney is now a part of the liberal echo-chamber? Wow. That's cool, I guess.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 01:10 PM

As was pointed out above (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22470.html)

You all better check your liberal echo-chamber notes on this issue; it was horrible that conservatives wanted the release of these photos stopped on national-security grounds, so now that Obama wants to prevent their release as well, for the same reason, it must be...must be...has to be...

a great idea. :rolling eyes:

Seriously; don't some of you get dizzy at times from spinning on stuff like this? :confused:

It's horrible Obama isn't releasing these pictures. I'm not dizzy at all. Most of us on the left oppose hiding the evidence of potential war crimes regardless of who is doing it.

I know you love trotting out your strawman liberal that supports everything Obama does, but perhaps you can address actual people here on the site rather than your fantasy punching bag.

Johan

05-13-2009, 02:03 PM

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Carry on!

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 02:12 PM

But I'm protesting Obama's decision to not release the torture photos. Am I doing that too much?

Midrael

05-13-2009, 02:21 PM

The only reasonable argument I've heard so far for not releasing the photos is what Ox suggested earlier in this thread. Releasing the photos could potentially taint the potential jury pool, making it difficult to try anyone for any crimes that may have occurred.

However, I wish that the photos would be released. I really want all this put to bed, and I don't think that's going to happen unless the laundry is aired out. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 02:24 PM

What jury pool? It's not like you or I are going to be called up for jury duty if George Bush or Dick Cheney ever get put on trial.

Midrael

05-13-2009, 02:29 PM

But if Average Joe CIA gets put on trial, wouldn't it be possible for you or I to be called into a jury of his peers? I would imagine that there are a significant number of people potentially at odds with the law other than the big obvious names.

Telefrog

05-13-2009, 02:33 PM

Oddly, I'm more outraged that Liz Cheney thinks Obama is siding with terrorists by doing something that he's not actually doing.

Edit: To be clear, the outrageous thing to me is the GOP talking point that keeps getting dredged up. "You're supporting the terrorists if..."

National Kato

05-13-2009, 02:40 PM

Edit: To be clear, the outrageous thing to me is the GOP talking point that keeps getting dredged up. "You're supporting the terrorists if..."

That's precisely what this is. It's the conservative talking point they think will win them support and votes. However, they tried it prior to the last election and it backfired, because most Americans understand it's a ridiculous argument.

As if releasing the photos of abuse was any more supportive of the terrorists' recruitment than the actual abuse.

ShivaX

05-13-2009, 03:06 PM

That's precisely what this is. It's the conservative talking point they think will win them support and votes. However, they tried it prior to the last election and it backfired, because most Americans understand it's a ridiculous argument.

As if releasing the photos of abuse was any more supportive of the terrorists' recruitment than the actual abuse.

At this point that statement is effectively a political meme. They overused it for years and now its lost any power it once had and has become a stupid joke.

People regularly use it relation to stupid things. "If you eat/don't eat <some food> you're supporting the terroists!" I haven't heard anyone other than the Cheneys use it in a remotely serious manner in years.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 03:09 PM

You obviously don't watch Fox News enough, then.

ShivaX

05-13-2009, 03:14 PM

You obviously don't watch Fox News enough, then.

Honestly just seeing clips of them on other networks is already seeing too much of them.

Doogie2K

05-13-2009, 03:18 PM

You obviously don't watch Fox News enough, then.

...and therefore are letting the terrorists win.

BlackPete

05-13-2009, 03:19 PM

So with Obama trying to suppress the photographic evidence and thus protecting the previous administration (and Cheney by proxy), Liz Cheney is saying he's siding with the terrorists?

Makes sense, I guess.

Ink Asylum

05-13-2009, 03:24 PM

Let's check in with the liberal echo chamber who, according to Johan, must now be hitting the brakes and pulling a complete 180 now that Obama has changed his mind. Naturally those Obamabots must have suddenly changed their views and are supporting Obama's decision to withhold the torture photos.

Here's Daily Kos, the largest and most influential liberal blog out there: (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/13/730984/-Obama-Blocks-Release-of-More-Torture-Photos)

This is an unwelcome and probably futile policy reversal from President Obama.

The Defense Dept. had previously agreed to release the photos by May 28 as part of a lawsuit filed years ago by the ACLU. President Obama's reasoning on reversing this decision seems dubious. The more this administration is seen as continuing the policies of the previous administration, the more damage will be done to us internationally.

Ok. So they're sticking to their guns and supporting the release of the photos. But they're not the only liberal blog out there!

How about TalkingPointsMemo, another prominent liberal blog and one of the oldest? (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/bad_sign.php)

It's hard not to view today's reversal by the White House, announcing that photos of detainee abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq will not be released to the public, as a sign of how long and hard they think the slog is ahead in Afghanistan -- and how crucial the outcome there will be for the future success of this Administration.

That's not a defense of the decision. I think it's a bad one. But it's an ominous decision for reasons that go beyond upholding the spirit of FOIA.

Ok. They're also opposed to Obama. Hmm....

What about digby, so respected by the liberal blogosphere that "What digby said" is a common blogger meme when linking to her? (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/danger-to-our-country-by-digby-come-on.html) If anyone can get those echoes started, it'll be her:

Come on. The administration is now refusing to release the remaining Abu Ghraib pictures because they have the potential to cause harm to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Really?

It seems to me that we should probably get them out of a war zone, then. Talk about dangerous. Why, last I heard they are getting shot at every day over there.

But this really takes the cake. In fact, I'm sorry to say that it reaches Fleischeresque levels of fatuousness.

Hmmm...how curious. Prominent liberals disagreeing with an Obama decision? But...how?

National Kato

05-13-2009, 03:32 PM

I expect we'll get another misquoted Hamlet reference?

Johan

05-13-2009, 05:36 PM

A president who:

- will not release photos of detainee/prisoner abuse.
- increases troop levels in Iraq.
- increases troop levels markedly...a surge...in Afghanistan.
- supports the RIAA in seeking fines of up to $150,000 per song.
- does not support gay marriage at the federal level.
- spends far more at the federal level than is sustainable based upon incoming tax receipts.
- wants to create more federal bureaucracy/benefits in health care.

I'm satisfied with the evidence. We have a Republican (following the previous president's lead) president. Bush lite. CHANGE we can believe in! :D

BlackPete

05-13-2009, 06:00 PM

Esquilax1138

05-13-2009, 06:57 PM

I'm satisfied with the evidence. We have a Republican (following the previous president's lead) president. Bush lite. CHANGE we can believe in! :D

I think it was said best by The Who a long time ago...

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Johan

05-13-2009, 08:45 PM

So... in other words, you support Obama?

That's funny! :D

I support Obama as much as I supported Bush. That would be....little if at all.

Now, pardon me while I go back to being incredibly amused at the change we're experiencing, including the administration abrogating contract law by bullying principal investors into taking $.30 on the dollar while the UAW, as a secondary creditor/investor takes $.50 on the dollar.

Tammany Hall...how familiar.

Narradisall

05-14-2009, 07:01 AM

Double post.

Narradisall

05-14-2009, 07:02 AM

I support Obama as much as I supported Bush. That would be....little if at all.

So you support the Terrorists? ;)

Kelegacy

05-14-2009, 07:05 AM

So you support the Terrorists? ;)

Obviously!

I think anyone that buys junk on XBLA and PSN like gamer pics and wallpapers are terrorist sypathizers as well. And Wii gamers. Don't forget those assholes.

Johan

05-14-2009, 08:47 AM

Hahahaha! President Bush....I mean, OBAMA...has an interesting view on detainees and their rights (or apparent lack thereof). (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090514/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamodetention_20090514105450)

President Barack Obama's "administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on US soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay," The Wall Street Journal said.

Change, baby. CHANGE!

Shrinn

05-14-2009, 09:38 AM

What would be acceptable to you? Let the terrorists run free while the military commissions were retooled to be an acceptable version of a trial? The hard facts are that they don't know how long it will take to retool the military trials so the prisoners must be held indefinitely until they can be fairly tried.

Johan

05-14-2009, 09:46 AM

The hard facts are that they don't know how long it will take to retool the military trials so the prisoners must be held indefinitely until they can be fairly tried.

President Bush? Is that you?

BlackPete

05-14-2009, 10:03 AM

Hahahaha! President Bush....I mean, OBAMA...has an interesting view on detainees and their rights (or apparent lack thereof). (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090514/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamodetention_20090514105450)

It's good to see you're able to laugh about this... considering he IS your president and probably will be for the next 8 years, and is the guy running the country.

Or was that a partisan laugh?

Slack3r78

05-14-2009, 10:04 AM

Revealing the abuses at Abu Ghraib stoppd further abuses at that prison, and likely elsewhere.
You're also aware that the photos that are publicly available of Abu Ghraib are relatively tame, and that the worst of the photos were never released to the public, right? All commentary on the topic has suggested that the unreleased photos and video are far, far worse than anything we've seen publicly.

I'm somewhat torn on this issue. I don't think there's really anything to be gained from the release of these photos. We already know it happened, and about the only thing I could see the release of photographic evidence accomplishing is inciting further anti-American sentiment.

Johan

05-14-2009, 10:08 AM

Or was that a partisan laugh?

Partisan laugh? Ha! There aren't even two sides to the policies here; they're the same! Why would I like them now when I didn't like them then? :confused:

BlackPete

05-14-2009, 11:57 AM

Partisan laugh? Ha! There aren't even two sides to the policies here; they're the same! Why would I like them now when I didn't like them then? :confused:

OK... so why'd you find it funny then?

Johan

05-14-2009, 02:36 PM

OK... so why'd you find it funny then?

Humor (call it dark or gallows humor, though neither quite fits categorically) is a positive outlet for the disgust and disappointment I feel with the reality of our society, our economy, our political environment, our wars (our history of wars), and our approach to most issues of any importance.

Given enough time you'll probably find the need for that kind of humor some day yourself, as you get older, or perhaps not.

Kelegacy

05-14-2009, 02:43 PM

Humor (call it dark or gallows humor, though neither quite fits categorically) is a positive outlet for the disgust and disappointment I feel with the reality of our society, our economy, our political environment, our wars (our history of wars), and our approach to most issues of any importance.

Given enough time you'll probably find the need for that kind of humor some day yourself, as you get older, or perhaps not.

I think you should run for public office. Like Obama and Martin Luther King, you must have a dream. You can't use the Change slogan for whatever you run for since it's already been driven into the ground, however. :)

If you are disgusted with so much of our society, you must have a vision for how things SHOULD be. Being complacent isn't doing anyone a damn bit of good. Get out there and campaign!

Johan

05-14-2009, 03:43 PM

...you must have a vision for how things SHOULD be. Being complacent isn't doing anyone a damn bit of good. Get out there and campaign!

I do indeed, and I am hardly complacent! I also do not view the political arena as a place to do "a damn bit of good" either. :D

BlackPete

05-14-2009, 04:33 PM

Humor (call it dark or gallows humor, though neither quite fits categorically) is a positive outlet for the disgust and disappointment I feel with the reality of our society, our economy, our political environment, our wars (our history of wars), and our approach to most issues of any importance.

Given enough time you'll probably find the need for that kind of humor some day yourself, as you get older, or perhaps not.

Eh, these days I'm largely indifferent and take every news with an unsurprised half-shrug.

What IS annoying are the freepers and 21%-ers chortling over every Obama flip-flop as a minor victory for their team -- while apparently not realizing that these flip-flops affect them as well. I'd wondered if you were one of them, or just simply disillusioned with politics in general.

Still, as a Canadian, the torture topic in general basically assures that Harper will never get his majority government wet dream, so I'm content in general.

EDIT: Errr.... forgot the "not" in "not realizing"

Johan

05-14-2009, 05:07 PM

...disillusioned with politics in general.

I'm disillusioned with far more than just the political circumstances of America in the past few decades, but I'm quite personally content despite the stupidity of our society.

Kelegacy

05-14-2009, 07:50 PM

I'm disillusioned with far more than just the political circumstances of America in the past few decades, but I'm quite personally content despite the stupidity of our society.

I'm more cynical each year. The last time I felt any real excitement is when Obama was running for the Whitehouse. I know a lot of people felt the same way. It was a good thing, getting people excited and interested in the process, getting people to vote who have never before or haven't in a long time. I still have hope the guy can do some truly great things, but I also think he does a lot of TALK. I just hope he can back up some of that jib-jab. I want more than just a charismatic leader--I want results. I know in this environment it's not going to be easy, or quick, but I'm still optimistic. For now.

For this cynical bastard, hope is priceless.

Johan

05-14-2009, 09:21 PM

I know in this environment it's not going to be easy, or quick, but I'm still optimistic. For now.

It's still early; I'll grant you that, willingly.

That being said, the tea leaves are looking urinated upon, in my view, and bode poorly for what lies ahead. :shrugs:

BlackPete

05-15-2009, 12:59 AM

Pelosi: The CIA lied to me! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7586530&page=1)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., accused CIA briefers today of lying to her and other lawmakers about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, and said she had only been informed of their use five months later.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls for a "truth commission."

"The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed," Pelosi said today, reading from a prepared statement.

Now the bottom line is this: Either the CIA is lying, or Pelosi is lying. I'd trust neither of them to tell me the truth, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the show instead.

I must admit that I enjoy seeing Pelosi squirm in a non-sexual way, though.

ShivaX

05-15-2009, 07:53 AM

Pelosi: The CIA lied to me! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7586530&page=1)

Now the bottom line is this: Either the CIA is lying, or Pelosi is lying. I'd trust neither of them to tell me the truth, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the show instead.

I must admit that I enjoy seeing Pelosi squirm in a non-sexual way, though.

I'd put good money on Pelosi being the liar.

Johan

05-15-2009, 07:55 AM

I'd put good money on Pelosi being the liar.

I'm betting both are lying, and both know it. Does anyone in government actually tell the truth? Not many...

ShivaX

05-15-2009, 08:02 AM

I'm betting both are lying, and both know it. Does anyone in government actually tell the truth? Not many...

Its possible, but I see Pelosi as playing politics with this. "Oh poor me, they never told us what they were doing," when they told her early on.

The CIA really has no reason to lie about it and they've got documents and the like to back up their claim.

This is purely Pelosi playing the "Bush/Cheney are evil" card and getting nailed on it.

Ink Asylum

05-15-2009, 08:19 AM

The CIA has no reason to lie about it? They are in the torture scandal much deeper than Pelosi is. If anything, they have more reason to lie about it than Pelosi does. If the worst about Pelosi is confirmed, she takes a solid political hit and could lose her job. If the worst about the CIA is confirmed there could be prosecutions.

I'm not believing either one yet, but the CIA is far from reliable when it comes to their behavior under Bush/Cheney.

ShivaX

05-15-2009, 08:59 AM

Ink Asylum

05-15-2009, 09:02 AM

The CIA lying doesn't change anything about their position legally.

It certainly does. They have a strong interest in drawing Democrats into culpability in order to soften any drive for investigations.

Johan

05-15-2009, 09:07 AM

They have a strong interest in drawing Democrats into culpability in order to soften any drive for investigations.

You do realize that the CIA isn't run by a nefarious cadre of conservatives/Republicans, right? They're currently being run by a Democratic appointee, which is what makes this whole situation so incredibly interesting.

Besides, I'm thinking there aren't enough Republicans left in the U.S. to fully staff the CIA...

BlackPete

05-15-2009, 11:08 AM

I'm going to have to go with occam's razor on this:

CIA = a whole lot of individuals all lying in unison
Pelosi = a single individual lying to cover her own ass

When I look at it that way, I'd have to lean towards Pelosi myself. However, the CIA DOES have a proven track record of lying, so these are muddy waters indeed. In this case, I think the CIA is really fudging and exaggerating the truth... but I also believe that Pelosi WAS involved, because there's simply no other way to explain her sudden lack of will in impeaching Cheney.

National Kato

05-15-2009, 02:30 PM

I'd put good money on Pelosi being the liar.

The plot thickens...MSNBC's David Shuster interviews Sen. Bob Graham, who is backing Speaker Pelosi's claim regarding the CIA:
David Shuster: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA misleads Congress all the time and has at least one big-name Democrat backing her up, Former Senator Bob Graham who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee following the 9/11 attacks and he joins us live this morning. Senator Graham, House Speaker Pelosi said specifically when she was briefed in September 2002, she was told that waterboarding specifically was not being used. What were you told during that same time period, September 2002?

Graham: David, when I was briefed which was about three weeks after the Speaker, the subject of waterboarding did not come up. Nor did the treatment of Abu Zubaydah or any other specific detainee.

Shuster: And the reason that's significant is because by the time of your briefing and the Speaker's briefing, we now knew Zubaydah had been waterboarded some 83 times. So again, was there a requirement, was it incumbent upon the CIA, to tell you as the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee or Ranking Member, was there an obligation on them to tell you about it if it was going on?

Graham: Yes, they're obligated to tell the full Intelligence Committee, not just the leadership. This was the same time within the same week, in fact, that the CIA was submitting its National Intelligence Estimate on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which proves so erroneous that we went to war, have had thousands of persons killed and injured as a result of misinformation.

Shuster: So what were they telling you that fall in 2002 about what they were and were not doing with terror suspects that were in US custody?

Graham: Nothing very remarkable. They were discussing the fact that they had detainees and that they were interrogating detainees. But nothing such as that they were using these extreme torture techniques that would have made it a surprising briefing.

Shuster: Now, there are some who suggest that by either providing false information to Speaker Pelosi or actually withholding information from her, withholding information from you, that those CIA briefers broke the law. What's your view on that?

Graham: That's for some legal authority to decide. I can only state what I experienced.

Shuster: What do you make of this whole sort of kerfuffle, and that's probably not the right word for it, between the Speaker and yourself and the CIA? What's going on? Do you think the CIA was simply trying to, I don't know, push things sort of under the rug or maybe that they were post dating or taking the documents and writing things in after the fact that hadn't actually happened in these briefings? What do you make of all of this?

Graham: David, I think fundamentally, what's happening is there's an attempt underway to try to shift it, the discussion away from what's really important, and that is did the United States use torture, was that within the law, who authorized it, and what were the consequences of that -- those are the important issues. Whether the Speaker or anybody else knew about it is, frankly, sort of off on the edges.

Shuster: Now, a lot of people who are not familiar with you Senator Graham, might say ‘how could Bob Graham know what was going on, what was said to him, nearly seven years ago, September 27th, 2002?' Explain the sort of notebooks that you keep and why they convinced you that in fact, the CIA had not told you certain information at that crucial briefing?

Graham: Well, the notebooks played another role in this. The CIA when I asked them, what were the dates these briefings took place, gave me four dates. And I went back to my spiral notebooks and a daily schedule that I keep and found, and the CIA concurred, that in three of those four dates, there was no briefing held. That raises some questions about the bookkeeping of the CIA. Under the rules of clandestine information, I was prohibited from keeping notes of what was actually said during that briefing other than a brief summation that it had to do with the interrogation of detainees.

Shuster: And finally, Senator Graham, do you believe there should be an investigation, either a special council or truth commission to find out exactly what was going on at the CIA at the time?

Graham: Yes, and more broadly than just what was going on at the CIA -- who was directing the CIA. The CIA is not a rogue organization. It responds to directions from higher authorities -- who were those authorities? What was the basis of their action and what was their motivation? Yes, I think there should be like the 9/11 commission a high level totally impartial group of Americans who will have the respect of the American people, review all those questions.

Shuster: Former Florida Senator Bob Graham. And Senator, thanks for joining us this morning.

Graham: Thank you, David.

ShivaX

05-15-2009, 02:42 PM

The plot thickens...MSNBC's David Shuster interviews Sen. Bob Graham, who is backing Speaker Pelosi's claim regarding the CIA:

Well I'm not sure I neccessarily trust a "Big Name Democrat" when it comes to defending another Big Bame Democrat.

I will agree with this point though:

Graham: David, I think fundamentally, what's happening is there's an attempt underway to try to shift it, the discussion away from what's really important, and that is did the United States use torture, was that within the law, who authorized it, and what were the consequences of that -- those are the important issues. Whether the Speaker or anybody else knew about it is, frankly, sort of off on the edges.

It only became any sort of issue because Pelosi said she knew nothing about it and made a big deal out of it. Then the CIA came back and said she did know, blah, blahwhogivesashit.

All that really matters is that it happened and where we go from here. Regardless of whos lying noones going to try to score any cheap political points playing the "but I didn't know anything" card again, and thats probably for the best.

National Kato

05-15-2009, 02:45 PM

I agree, ShivaX. However, Graham chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, so it's not just a 'Big Name Democrat' in that he was also a party to those briefings.

Ultimately, you're right: the whole Pelosi issue is a smokescreen in the way of what's really important.

Ink Asylum

05-15-2009, 03:02 PM

Well I'm not sure I neccessarily trust a "Big Name Democrat" when it comes to defending another Big Bame Democrat.

This is an important point:

Shuster: Now, a lot of people who are not familiar with you Senator Graham, might say ‘how could Bob Graham know what was going on, what was said to him, nearly seven years ago, September 27th, 2002?' Explain the sort of notebooks that you keep and why they convinced you that in fact, the CIA had not told you certain information at that crucial briefing?

Graham: Well, the notebooks played another role in this. The CIA when I asked them, what were the dates these briefings took place, gave me four dates. And I went back to my spiral notebooks and a daily schedule that I keep and found, and the CIA concurred, that in three of those four dates, there was no briefing held. That raises some questions about the bookkeeping of the CIA. Under the rules of clandestine information, I was prohibited from keeping notes of what was actually said during that briefing other than a brief summation that it had to do with the interrogation of detainees.

The CIA told Graham he'd had four meetings, he challenged them with his own records, they backed down. So the CIA is already showing that they're not completely reliable with their own records.

BlackPete

05-15-2009, 03:10 PM

Ultimately, you're right: the whole Pelosi issue is a smokescreen in the way of what's really important.

Yup. Here's the evolution of the torture issue so far:

- "We don't torture."
- "We only tortured a couple of bad apples, who were evil and don't deserve any pity."
- "We ran it past Pelosi and she said it was OK."
- "Torture works. If only you'd release the damn memos, you'd see for yourself."

The people responsible are doing everything they can to deflect and confuse the issue.

Johan

05-15-2009, 03:34 PM

...the whole Pelosi issue is a smokescreen in the way of what's really important.

I disagree to an extent. In fact, I think it would be highly instructive for supporters of the Democratic Party to know that their party leaders supported what they now apparently decry as "torture" and "illegal."

Just like Franks and Dodd and their involvement in the financial crisis...
Just like the Democrats who voted to authorize our misadventure in Iraq...

Our leaders, on both sides of the aisle, are complicit in these decisions.

Edit: I now believe that Pelosi is the one lying...egregiously so. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employees_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth. html?showall)

I'm sure it will cost her nothing. Nothing at all. After all, it's far more important to be in power than to have principles. Her constituents wouldn't vote her out of office, and her party certainly won't do much of anything, either. The Republicans wouldn't, either...

BlackPete

05-15-2009, 04:28 PM

I'm sure it will cost her nothing. Nothing at all. After all, it's far more important to be in power than to have principles. Her constituents wouldn't vote her out of office, and her party certainly won't do much of anything, either. The Republicans wouldn't, either...

Dennis Hastert.

EDIT: Well, technically he "resigned" but he never really recovered from the Foley scandal.

ShivaX

05-15-2009, 05:21 PM

Dennis Hastert.

EDIT: Well, technically he "resigned" but he never really recovered from the Foley scandal.

Its still hard to say he would've been voted out in reality.

Hell you can be convicted of felonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens) and almost get reelected (though technically only charged at the time), being on of the worst abusers of pork there ever was while your presidential candidate is trying to rally the country against pork-barrel spending. Nevermind being so out of touch with reality that you'd say something so epically stupid it has become one of the most famous phrases of the modern age.

BlackPete

05-15-2009, 07:45 PM

Former Powell CoS speaks out against Cheney (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/14/the_truth_about_richard_bruce_cheney/):

Third--and here comes the blistering fact--when Cheney claims that if President Obama stops "the Cheney method of interrogation and torture", the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.

My investigations have revealed to me--vividly and clearly--that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering "the Cheney methods of interrogation", simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.

What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?

Well... damn. Both Pelosi and Cheney are on the fire? This satisfies me.

alienmastermind

05-16-2009, 06:14 PM

I will state for the record that of the two, only Pelosi has said, release the briefings that state clearly what was said and by whom. Cheney is pointing to CIA memos that support his assertion that illegal torture is effective and therefore an acceptable illegality.

I won't go into the whole 'Is it right/wrong to torture someone'. I think it's wrong. But it's also illegal. And when you say 'We don't torture' on top of it....well...damn, I guess you got a big ol' pile of hypocrisy sandwiches to scarf down.

And Johan...your 'cynical' (sic) view of the Obama presidency is based on what? His reactions to Bush policy fallout? Hell, these are the chickens of 2001-8 coming home to roost. His policies haven't even begun to come to the fore yet. Just repairs to a broken government. (Broken, ironically, by people who say the government doesn't work, ha, ha ha.)

Johan

05-16-2009, 06:29 PM

And Johan...your 'cynical' (sic) view of the Obama presidency is based on what?

His broken promises.
His faulty assumptions of what policies will work to repair our economy.
His hypocrisy (see: broken promises).
ad infinitum.

Would you like a paper bag? You may need one. :D

Also, cynical is spelled correctly, so "(sic)" is unnecessary and therefore merely confusing, as it is typically used to denote spelling or usage in a context where the original 'user' of the word/expression is incorrect in using/spelling a word...though it is certainly a nice allusion to Latin all the same! :confused:

As for Obama, it's early yet; I'll grant you that. I'm not hopeful, however, based upon what he has done so far.

alienmastermind

05-19-2009, 12:12 PM

Also, cynical is spelled correctly, so "(sic)" is unnecessary and therefore merely confusing, as it is typically used to denote spelling or usage in a context where the original 'user' of the word/expression is incorrect in using/spelling a word...

You are stating you're cynical of government. I'm saying your use of the word 'cynical' is questionable, in that I don't think you're using the word correctly in this context. Though to be pedantic about it would bore everyone, and isn't germaine to the conversation. I think that you're a partisan, and you talk partisan politics quite well, but the stance you take on issues is pretty hardliner 'there's a better way'. (See also the Pelosi thread. :) )

I don't think you're cynical. Hence, sic.

You didn't spell it wrong, I just think you're using the word wrong.

As for Obama, it's early yet; I'll grant you that. I'm not hopeful, however, based upon what he has done so far.

Listen, the guy put HOPE on his posters. ON HIS POSTERS! What more can you ask for? :)

Johan

05-19-2009, 12:17 PM

I think that you're a partisan, and you talk partisan politics quite well

Really now? :confused: Which party do I support?

You haven't been reading my posts very closely.

05-19-2009, 12:28 PM

Main Entry: 1par·ti·san
Variant(s): also par·ti·zan \ˈpär-tə-zən, -sən, -ˌzan, chiefly British ˌpär-tə-ˈzan\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French partisan, from north Italian dialect partiźan, from part part, party, from Latin part-, pars part
Date: 1555
1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person ; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

"party, faction, cause, or person". One can be partisan by being an adherent to, say, paleoconservatism, even though neither of the major American parties is really paleoconservative.

Johan

05-19-2009, 01:43 PM

partisan = one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Yes, I'm blind in my allegiance to...to...to...our wonderful political parties, both of which I deeply respect and appreciate.

No, wait; I'm blind (because I see them for what they truly are) in my allegiance to hating our broken, partisan political system. :D

Edit: Here's a retarded example of childish, spiteful partisanship. (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_133/news/35043-1.html)

Republicans are trying to pass legislation in the next few weeks to kick off the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth, and the only hurdle appears to be Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who is refusing to let the Senate vote on the bill.

Congress passes such resolutions routinely. Talk about partisan idiocy. :shakes head:

alienmastermind

05-19-2009, 04:36 PM

Irony fail. (http://www.rollcall.com/news/35077-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Johan

05-19-2009, 04:57 PM

Changed his mind since I posted it, eh? :D

Well, that only proves politicians are not only petty and retarded partisans, but indecisive ones, as well!!

Oh, and irony succeed! (http://www.rollcall.com/news/35053-1.html)

:D

alienmastermind

05-19-2009, 05:19 PM

Changed his mind since I posted it, eh? :D

Well, that only proves politicians are not only petty and retarded partisans, but indecisive ones, as well!!

And in other news, sky blue, water wet, and grass is green. Stay tuned for more! :D

The writer of this blog entry, which doesn't cite a source, or talk about anything other than the rumor that Feingold was going to do this (posted at 12:00 am), is suspect...in my opinion.

If you state someone was thinking about doing something, and then doesn't, that doesn't make you Chris Walken from The Dead Zone. :)

Edit: Oh man, it's even better! Your original post used to be three lines long, along with mine. His explanation is that he was trying to hold off on that bill to get another noncontroversial bill passed, and hadn't realized how close to the deadline they were. He relented when the Reagan Library called him, and they all came to terms.

Ah, bipartisanship! *snnfffffff* Can ya smell it?!

Double. Irony. Fail. Bwa-ha-ha!

Oh, and irony succeed! (http://www.rollcall.com/news/35053-1.html)

:D

Not...really? Obama says 'I want to close Gitmo'. Dems decide to strip funding to keep it open? That's not Obama doing that....right? Or are you taking crazy pills?