Obama/Cheney National Security Speeches - May 21, 2009

[National Kato]

Both President Obama and former Vice President Cheney gave speeches this morning on national security, Guantanamo, torture, and other related topics.

Obama Speech, National Archives [Transcript & Video] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html)

Cheney Speech, American Enterprise Institute [Transcript & Video] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/cheneys-speech-obama-dese_n_206165.html)
[links provided by Huffington Post, not for editorial content but due to availability of full transcript and video]

Feel free to discuss.

[Wraith]

Links from NYT (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/live-blogging-the-presidents-national-security-speech/):


The Obama transcript. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?_r=1)
The Cheney transcript. (http://www.aei.org/docLib/Vice%20President%20Cheney%20Remarks%205%2021%2009. pdf) (PDF)

[Johan]

Obama said he had no intention of looking back and "relitigating the policies" of the Bush administration.

But at the same time, he strongly criticized former President George W. Bush's actions.

* I'm not here to blame others or focus on the past.
* It's their fault, which he states repeatedly in his speech while not 'relitigating' Bush policies. :D
* No, I don't have a plan yet. This is tough, man!

Obama is really growing on me. He's absolutely hilarious in his disingenuous rhetoric, while earning the glowing praise and adulation of the teeming masses. He's like Bush 2.0, with the ability to speak and not engender hatred for the same essential policies. :D

[alienmastermind]

* I'm not here to blame others or focus on the past.
* It's their fault, which he states repeatedly in his speech while not 'relitigating' Bush policies. :D
* No, I don't have a plan yet. This is tough, man!

Obama is really growing on me. He's absolutely hilarious in his disingenuous rhetoric, while earning the glowing praise and adulation of the teeming masses. He's like Bush 2.0, with the ability to speak and not engender hatred for the same essential policies. :D

Your thinly veiled partisanship is just adorable, Johan.

1. The 'focusing on the past' is in reference to pursuing those responsible for torture in a separate DoJ investigation...not Gitmo, you disingenuous little pixie.

2. If I have a mound of hog shit in my living room when I come into a house I just purchased, (Johan, I leave it to your own judgement whether you'd like to make a campaign funding joke instead of answering the point. I have faith that you'll do the right thing. Then, you'll erase it, and make the joke anyway. :D) and the last owner had a pet hog, should I believe the hog shit is from the hog shit fairy? Or, what you seem to be suggesting, take the blame for the mound of pork poo as my own lack of insight into the vagaries of home ownership? Or, should I say: That fucker's pig left hog shit in my house! What a mess!

3. WTF? No plan?

Did you read the transcript? -- Oh wait, look who I'm asking...Nevermind. Forget I said anything.

[Johan]

Your thinly veiled partisanship is just adorable, Johan.

You're cute too. I'm especially fond of those on the left grasping at the ethereal shadows of leftover promises made by Obama. You may want to educate yourself on that score. (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2)

He does indeed have no plan to deal with the cases that have been the most difficult ones since the previous administration...detainees who are apparently too dangerous to release, and also apparently don't deserve a conventional trial, either, according to his administration (hello there, military tribunals).

Or, wait...you read the transcript. Tell us what his plan is for those particular individuals. Where will they go? Woops...we don't know yet. That's the hard part, and he delayed a decision on that, AGAIN.

I love hypocrisy. It's invigorating. :D

I'll grant you this much, however...he packages old, tired, worn-out Bush-leftover-shit as if it were a beautiful buffet of progressivism. He's a brilliant politician, which is as deep an insult as I know of.

[Telefrog]

What the fuck? Seriously. This (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/22/rnc-uses-controversial-daisy-ad-to-target-obama/) is the RNC response to Obama?

The Republican National Committee Friday unearthed one of the most controversial political ads in American history to take aim at President Obama's decision to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

What's the point? Would anyone that saw the new ad but didn't read the CNN article about the old version even know the hidden message?

[Johan]

take aim at President Obama's decision to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

They needn't worry. Obama's opening another one, at Bagram. Wrap it in a new location and it's all better!

[Shrinn]

Closing Guantanamo instead of reforming it is a political move, I think we can agree on this.

But shouldn't you give him a chance to make this new one acceptable in his and the American population's eyes?

If I own a prison where everyday one person gets shot because that's how I want to run my prison. People don't take kindly to that, it's closed, a new one is opened to house the prisoners. Does that automatically mean that one person a day will still get shot?

I understand your pessimism, though.

[Telefrog]

They needn't worry. Obama's opening another one, at Bagram. Wrap it in a new location and it's all better!

Sure, except the RNC apparently disagrees, right? Apparently, only Guantanamo can get the job done. Closing it, regardless of whether or not we continue business as-usual in another location, is the lynchpin of our anti terror startegy! Obama has doomed poor Daisy to terrible fate!

[Johan]

Sure, except the RNC apparently disagrees, right? Apparently, only Guantanamo can get the job done.

The RNC is nutso, as is Cheney. If they were paying any attention at all, they'd realize Obama is a near-replica of Bush on most of these fundamental issues.

Which I hate. Passionately. I don't take to vomit just because the packaging has changed. It's still vomit. I won't buy it. Others may. That's up to them.

Would McCain have been better? Doubtful. He didn't even want to be president, it seemed to me.

Edit: For those who want to put on a pile of tinfoil, perhaps there is a reason Obama is receiving so much flack from the right. Perhaps the reason is to provide him with cover for continuing the policies that were begun by the right. If he's attacked by the right, then he must be moderate on the issues, or even left/progressive, right, and his base will rise to defend him, right? Even though his policies are essentially the same!

More likely, the right wants to be able to blame the Dems. for any possible future terrorist attack. Statistically, with enough attempts, one has to be successful eventually. Naturally, politicians will try to make partisan hay out of dead Americans. The Republicans were quite skilled at that after 9-11.

No tinfoil for me, however. I don't buy the 'cover' angle...I just think he's a typical politician. He lies.

[alienmastermind]

Or, wait...you read the transcript.

Read this carefully, Johan. Because I'm only going to have this exchange with you this one time. You're suggesting I'm lying about reading the transcript here. The plum colored text isn't sarcasm, you're flat-out calling me a liar.

Fuck that noise.

I haven't said you're a liar, just a partisan hack who doesn't know what cynical means. Linking to 'The New Republic'? Yeah, independent thinkers unite, here, but again this is about civility and your lack throughout EVERY thread I have tried to talk to you on, or anyone else for that matter! You constantly just troll and troll and troll....

The fact is, I listened to him live on the radio (as he was speaking), then went back to the transcript to get the quotes I'm about to put up that you will try to barf semantic arguments over because you don't 'believe' that he'll make good on the promises he's made. I can't make you stop saying 'It's my belief that he won't do what he says'. I can only continuously show you the facts, and watch you scramble to make a semantic argument over facts.

I get it. You don't believe in government. When your house catches fire, pal, please keep your phone on the hook, and put it out yourself, because the government is out to get you, and in no way supports the interests of the people.


Tell us what his plan is for those particular individuals. Where will they go? Woops...we don't know yet. That's the hard part, and he delayed a decision on that, AGAIN.

How do you know this, Johan? Your stunted and myopic view of how this man's policies are being carried out are misinformed, and often just oblivious to reality, and when reality sits on your head like a fat sweaty gorilla you say 'Look at my new hat! Bleeble Bleeble! I hate the government!'

Yeah, I'm being a dick, because you've called me a liar, in so many words. But now, since I've been reprimanded I changed the offensive wording.

But here's what he said, since, as I assumed, you clearly DIDN'T read the transcript.

Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.

There exists RIGHT THE FUCK NOW an empty prison in Montana that could be filled with every prisoner from Gitmo that is dangerous, and it would bring jobs to the area, and they're looking for prisoners for their new prison. Hell, repurposing it for SuperMax status would also bring money and jobs to the area.

The guys who bombed the WTC in the 90s, they're in prison. They haven't broken out.

What do you want, Johan? The fucking itinerary for the trip from Gitmo to a SuperMax prison? No, if your past responses are any indicator, you would bitch that they're letting them have a bathroom break in Moose Ass, Colorado.

As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Republican Lindsey Graham said, the idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.

So, the facts are, we can transfer those found guilty to American prisons, and that's the PLAN. That word you keep asking about? That's the plan.

Steps to the plan?


We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. And as we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last administration, detainees were released and, in some cases, returned to the battlefield. That's why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and that our security demands.

So, before closing, determining the proper legal course. Sounds like progress from 'HOLD THEM FOREVER'.


First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. The record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He was convicted in our courts and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prisons. Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

See? After determining the proper legal course, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts. Sounds like a plan, Johan.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.


And, oddly enough Johan, he must read your posts because he also said:

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They should look at the record. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.

I said at that time, however, that I supported the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms, and in fact there were some bipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms. Those are the reforms that we are now making. Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms, among others, will make our military commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and members of both parties, as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum, on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

Sounds reasonable. On to the third section of the PLAN.


The third category of detainees includes those who have been ordered released by the courts. Now, let me repeat what I said earlier: This has nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have spoken. They have found that there's no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Nineteen of these findings took place before I was sworn into office. I cannot ignore these rulings because as President, I too am bound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws and so we must abide by these rulings.

Bound by law. The President, bound by law, upholding the courts' decision. Yeah, shoddy leadership there...There's more, but you won't read it anyway.


I'll grant you this much, however...he packages old, tired, worn-out Bush-leftover-shit as if it were a beautiful buffet of progressivism. He's a brilliant politician, which is as deep an insult as I know of.

I will agree that he's a good politician, but he's not repackaging anything. He has to handle shit, because, as I said before, the shit was in his house. Heretofore consider this my pat response to most of the things you say:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e238/supervillain75/ublvbg.jpg

[Wraith]

P&R Arena Rules (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=7562)

[Johan]

I will agree that he's a good politician, but he's not repackaging anything.

You have no idea what you are talking about. (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2)

Carry on then! Please, post some more pretty photos rather than addressing the well-researched points at the link. Also, feel free to violate the rules here and call me retarded. I don't enforce the rules, after all.

Bush 2.0. Now it can talk! :D

It's amazing how easily the left swallows from Obama what it wouldn't touch from Bush. Such pretty packaging, with nice words and thoughts!

Also, that's a helluva plan. Too bad the Democrats have already rejected it as vague and unsupportable. His own party won't swallow what you're taking in, hook, line, and sinker.

[Voodoo]

How do you know this, Johan? Your retarded (and I'm using the adjective as in 'stunted') view of how this man's policies are being carried out are misinformed, and often just oblivious to reality, and when reality sits on your head like a fat sweaty gorilla you say 'Look at my new hat! Bleeble Bleeble! I hate the government!'

Yeah, I'm being a dick, because you've called me a liar, in so many words.

Well, now you've got my attention. I do realize the different uses of the word retarded. In this case, it is rather subjective. You could have easily used the word stunted but choose not to.

I would just say that it'd be a shame to take so much time on these lengthly posts to have the opportunity to post them taken away by a single word or sentence.

[alienmastermind]

You have no idea what you are talking about. (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2)[quote]

You seriously read what I wrote, and linked to the same damned thing.

You can hear me blinking two houses over.

[quote]Carry on then! Please, post some more pretty photos rather than addressing the well-researched points at the link. Also, feel free to violate the rules here and call me retarded. I don't enforce the rules, after all.

The only rule broken here is your grasp of 'You're' and 'your'. :) None of the rules of grammar are rigidly enforced, or I'd be DOOMED. :(

Also, that's a helluva plan. Too bad the Democrats have already rejected it as vague and unsupportable. His own party won't swallow what you're taking in, hook, line, and sinker.

Here's the thing, Johan. Now, you're saying the plan won't work. Initially your statement was: 'He doesn't have a plan'. Now, you're saying that your issue is the plan's feasability. Which is it?

I don't know, unless you're actively trying to troll, here, what to tell you. You've called Obama 'Bush 2.0', but can't substantiate it. I read that snippet from The New Republic, and it makes lots of assertions based on hearsay, but cites nothing as a source other than Bush-era DoD facts. (which were handed out to right-wing noise machinists pretty easily)

This is an election year, Johan. Politicians need to be reelected to have a career. Say you're Johan, Representative of District 201 in Michigan. (this is all ficticious) You have to come back to Michigan and explain for the attack ads the other side will NO DOUBT run saying 'Johan let terrorists into America! Doesn't he love America? Call Congressman Johan and tell him that you're confused about his loyalties'.

This probably explains the Dems reluctance to follow in lockstep...That is typical politics.

[Johan]

You seriously read what I wrote, and linked to the same damned thing.

Because you haven't responded to a single point there. There is no response to any of it, except for spin. It's Bush 2.0, with eloquence and marketing.

Now, you're saying the plan won't work. Initially your statement was: 'He doesn't have a plan'. Now, you're saying that your issue is the plan's feasability. Which is it?

You're reading my posts, right? :confused:

To assist in that endeavor:

vague and unsupportable

A plan that is vague and unsupportable is no plan at all. Which is it? I've never veered. It's no plan at all, because it's essentially Bush's plan, with window dressing and some rearranged deck chairs on the Titanic.

Your defense of Obama, however, is truly amazingly amusing and hilarious to me. It's just so...rich...to see supposed 'progressives' support Bush's policies now that Obama advocates them.

You have no idea how amusing that is. It's priceless.

Now, please post some more pretty pictures. We had another forum-poster, who has since left us, who used to fill that niche rather well.

I read that snippet from The New Republic, and it makes lots of assertions based on hearsay, but cites nothing as a source other than Bush-era DoD facts.

You are either lying or you didn't read it. Many of the links are to legal documents filed by the Obama administration in support of Bush-initiated policies.

In fact, Obama has even gone BEYOND Bush in several policies, in terms of executive overreach.

[alienmastermind]

The source you site is fairly partisan, and does cherry-pick information, Johan. I don't know if you're aware, but The New Republic isn't exactly 'fair and balanced' journalism.

1. War v. Crime
The DoJ document cited in this point goes on to state that the stance of the Government (NOT THE PRESIDENT, by the way) detainees at Gitmo who fall under the description of 'Al Qaeda' operatives will be handled in a manner that is reserved for military prisoners/prisoners of war. Due primarily to the argument that those who fall under that description were obtained on the field of battle in Afghanistan.

The Constitutionality of this stance seems to be solid. A case of 'if it ain't broke' I suppose. And again, the thing they cite is a legal document signed by the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, and nowhere is Obama's name mentioned. It's interesting to note that the document is from March of 09.

2. Guantanamo Bay
The prison there is going to close, I believe. Whether you believe this or not, however you'd like to couch the terms, it is the stated intent of Obama to close it, and I think he'll get it done.

3. Military Detention
The citings here are a laundry list of Obama opponents. Spinning for the Right is the current job of the WSJ it seems (being owned by Rupert Murdoch, would you be surprised), but hey, let's look at their take.

Here's the headline: Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely
And in the first sentence, they say it's some, and don't define some. Nor do they go on to say anything of substance other than asserting this is some kind of flip-flop.

It re-states the DoJ Government stance on military prisoners, and cites a multi-party lawsuit, suing for those being held as military prisoners (identified in the document as battlefield prisoners) to be served with writs of habeas corpus, or given a list of the charges against them.

The document states that these men were captured on the battlefield, and found to be assisting the enemy, and are being held under military code, NOT federal law, and therefore don't fall into that category. Obama's speech said that they would be reviewing these cases and going through them to find out who stays imprisoned and who goes.

I'll get to the others as I sift through the rhetoric and the conjecture.

So far the facts are siding in the middle. It seems like these are the preliminary 'Everything stays the way it was in the last days of the last administration, so we can fix it'. Again, whether this will work or not, remains to be seen.

[Johan]

The source...The New Republic...isn't exactly 'fair and balanced'...

This. Is. A. Crutch.

I would put a pretty picture here, but I don't do them.

1. War v. Crime
...the stance of the Government (NOT THE PRESIDENT, by the way)...A case of 'if it ain't broke' I suppose...It's interesting to note that the document is from March of 09.

I just...I...wow. I'm speechless on this response.

2. Guantanamo Bay
The prison there is going to close, I believe.

He says so, and you believe so.

Bagram is available, however. Don't worry.

3. Military Detention
Spinning for the Right is the current job of the WSJ it seems

Again. Speechless.

These are poor refutations of legal documents and well-known Obama-administration positions.

Back to the drawing board? After all, if you're going to lay out a buffet of leftovers from '08, you need to warm them up properly.

Again, whether this will work or not, remains to be seen.

Actually, we haven't had a successful attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. These repackaged methods work, but the problem is that people oppose many of them on principle.

At least they used to, before Obama started selling them.

[Johan]

Charles Krauthammer weighs in. (http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/22/obama_in_bush_clothing_america_fights_on)

"We were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning."

-- Unnamed and dismayed human rights advocate, on legalizing indefinite detention of alleged terrorists, New York Times, May 21

"The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e. slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e. the surge) -- and now Guantanamo."

...rendition -- turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets -- claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus -- to detainees in Afghanistan's Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo.

The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over.When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That's happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

Deeds, not words. The words merely package the deeds, and conceal them for what they truly are; Bush 2.0.

[ShivaX]

Not to support Johan neccessarily, but the Daily Show kinda covered this well:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=228041&title=american-idealogues

Obama does say a lot of things that Bush said and barely changes the words.

Then again Cheney, by his own words, is actively empowering our enemies.

[alienmastermind]

This. Is. A. Crutch.

Okay, Johan. I am calling your source biased. Meaning, it's flawed in a way that deflates your argument to Monty Python 'argument sketch' levels of gainsaying whenever you post something linked to them.

I just...I...wow. I'm speechless on this response.

Nice response. Or lack.

He says so, and you believe so.

Bagram is available, however. Don't worry.

Has this happened yet? When it does, make a thread. But, kindly don't link to right-wing or left-wing think tanks to support any 'evidence', man. I don't buy it. Just like I wouldn't buy the Tobacco Institutes findings on Lung Cancer in People Who Smoke.

Again. Speechless.

Feigning bafflement. Again. How about a response, Johan?

These are poor refutations of legal documents and well-known Obama-administration positions.

The Wall Street Journal OpEd page, according to most sane people wouldn't be considered a LEGAL brief. Nor would just an article which, since I went and took some time to read it I can tell you truthfully, only spits out conjecture, much as you have done, about policy rather than pointing to a bill introduced, law passed, or memo written by the President.

The two documents from the DoJ talk about the prior stance of the US Government. Not President Obama.

Back to the drawing board? After all, if you're going to lay out a buffet of leftovers from '08, you need to warm them up properly.

Yeah, and the wonderful meal was prepared by the Republicans who held sway there for nearly a decade, yes?

Actually, we haven't had a successful attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. These repackaged methods work, but the problem is that people oppose many of them on principle.

And here, Johan, this says to me that you're basically a rightie pretending to play center field. In fact your 'cynicism' about government only seems to act up when Dems are in charge. Like a trick knee or a bad elbow during a thunderstorm. Partisan politics are fine, man, but this statement 'We haven't had a successful attack on US soil since 9-11' does nothing to prove or disprove the methods beyond 'We hope we're right'. Because since 9-11 pterodactyls haven't attacked Seattle. Thank God we're torturing people and holding them indefinitely.

Other Things, By this Definition, That The Bush Interrogation Techniques Prevent:

- 10 foot hair lice that can sing the soundtrack from Xanadu
- Space alien attack
- Space alien friendly visit
- The Ice Capades becoming the militant wing of the Green Party
- Reruns of Diff'rent Strokes being played in farsi on high holy days
- High-Fives at Funerals
- Haggis eating contests
- Mummy attack

Or, since after 9-11 they don't really need to attack us on our soil...and, they have closer and more valuable targets nearer to them.

I won't cite the dumbshits from NY who got caught trying to plant fake bombs as a SUCCESS! of not torturing, but no one was tortured to get those guys, man.

At least they used to, before Obama started selling them.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Johan. Are you insulting me exclusively here? Or people who voted in good conscience for the President? It doesn't bother me, really, the 'drank the Kool-Aid' remarks, but I'd like to know if that's what you're implying here.

I consider myself to be pretty even-keeled about the President. He's yet to do anything ZOMG to make me doubt his intentions. Whereas, I imagine you in a bunker, stocking up on chilidogs and the precious styrofoam cups we'll be using as currency in the wastelands of armageddon.

To the quotes above. Yes, politispeak is interchangeable. And, sadly, the realities of politicians often dim their otherwise rose-colored campaign promises.

In my opinion, Obama's doing what he said he would.

[alienmastermind]

Charles Krauthammer weighs in. (http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/22/obama_in_bush_clothing_america_fights_on).

Seriously. Charles Krauthammer? On Townhall? Quoting an anonymous (read:fictitious) source?

[Ox]

Seriously. Charles Krauthammer? On Townhall? Quoting an anonymous (read:fictitious) source?
Are you suggesting that there are no human rights advocates who are dismayed by Obama's policy regarding indefinite detention? Because if so, I'm happy to find some people who went on the record expressing dismay.

[alienmastermind]

Ox, and you know me, man, I'll gladly read them. I'm sure in the infinite spectrum of thought in the US, there exist these people. I'm saying Krauthammer, a right-wing hack, on Townhall.com, a website for right-wing hacks, is lying.

[Ox]

'Kay. Do Glenn Greenwald and Senator Russ Feingold (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/25/obama/) suffice? How about Ben Wizmer of the ACLU (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/25/obama/index1.html)?

Or, if you like Keith Olbermann's show, you could just watch this guest:
xsT1vw_EGOg

Is that adequate? Or it Krauthammer still a "hack" and a liar for saying these people disagree with the President?

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm not sure why quoting a New York Times story means one is a hack and a liar. If you can spell that particular piece of brilliant logic out for me, I'd be appreciative.

[alienmastermind]

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm not sure why quoting a New York Times story means one is a hack and a liar. If you can spell that particular piece of brilliant logic out for me, I'd be appreciative.

The same way waving a laundry list around and saying 'I have a list of names here of 205 known Communists in the US Government' is suspect when you never bring forth names.

An unnamed unsourced person, who, by the by doesn't actually appear to have made that statement in the online article on the 21st, or appear to be quoted anywhere other than Krauthammer's piece in the paper according to my search for the quote.

There were, however, members of the ACLU who did say similar things, but not the same things. If he's refusing to quote the ACLU out of philosophical differences and willing to fabricate a quote it makes him a liar, man.

Thanks for calling me brilliant though. :D

I love you too, Ox. ;)

Edit: Also, man, I've said, that I agree with Bush, "Fool me once, shame on you", and Krauthammer is a notorious liar and fabricator.

This is from a partisan site, admittedly, but it sure seems damning on the face of it.

In today's piece, there is a lion's share of dubious arguments, but one truly does merit great consideration. In judging Bush's record on North Korea a draw, Krauthammer argues:

"We did get Kim Jong Il to disable his plutonium-producing program. . . Disabling the plutonium reactor is an achievement, and we do gain badly needed intelligence by simply being there on the ground to inspect. There is, however, no hope of North Korea giving up its existing nuclear weapons stockpile and little assurance that we will find, let alone disable, any clandestine programs. But lacking sticks, we take what we can."

This is just a bald-faced misrepresentation of the truth it practically takes your breath away. What Krauthammer fails to mention here is that North Korea's plutonium-producing program lay dormant, under lock and key and IAEA inspection, during the Clinton Administration, only to be re-started under the Bush Administration.

And the testing continues today.

Here's more. (http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/12/that-wacky-wa-1.html)

[Ox]

The same way waving a laundry list around and saying 'I have a list of names here of 205 known Communists in the US Government' is suspect when you never bring forth names.
Wow. Quoting the New York Times on people criticizing Obama is the same as McCarthyism.

An unnamed unsourced person, who, by the by doesn't actually appear to have made that statement in the online article on the 21st, or appear to be quoted anywhere other than Krauthammer's piece in the paper according to my search for the quote.
Gee, look what I found by plugging the quote into Google. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html) First link, by the by.

If he's refusing to quote the ACLU out of philosophical differences and willing to fabricate a quote it makes him a liar, man.
And so what are you? I don't think you're lying about conducting a search for the quote, but if I were an unfair person, I think I could make a pretty strong case you just lied about searching for the quote.

EDIT: Oh, and incidentally, Mr. Krauthammer's column was not only published in Townhall.com. If you don't trust that publication, the same column appeared on the Op-Ed pages of the Boston Herald, Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, and Chicago Tribune the same week.

[Ox]

In today's piece
Check the date.

[alienmastermind]

Wow. Quoting the New York Times on people criticizing Obama is the same as McCarthyism.

No, stating unnamed sources and claiming them to hold damning information is like Joe McCarthy's statement.

Taking an analogy to its ridiculous extreme to paint the other side as 'bad' is like McCarthyism, Ox.

And, I stand corrected on the record of Krauthammer's statement/piece being other places than townhall.com. But, I still think Krauthammer's lied in the past, and should be viewed as a person who has a propensity to lie when it suits his purpose, especially in a political context.

Ox, just call me a liar, man, if you think I'm lying about it. I'll admit (and believe I did, admit) that I didn't look into it too hard. But if you assume I'm lying all the time, what could I possibly do or say to persuade you otherwise? Nothing, so, I'd appreciate it if you just said 'You know, alien, I think you're lying' if you think I'm lying.

Fact is, I didn't put too much thought into trying to disprove the guy on this, because he's notoriously slanted. Looks like I was fooled on this one.

Krauthammer, still a hack. A hack who occasionally tells the truth.