in other words, he lied ...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/sedition-oliar-busted-bombshell-uncovered-obama-said-on-the-senate-floor-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-g.html
Obama said on the senate floor that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to get a "full military trial with all the bells and whistles"..."justice will be carried out in his case" (Breitbart, hat tip Milton)
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Former A.G. Mukasey slams A.G. Holder's KSM idiocy
Attorney General Mukasey on the Transfer of KSM et al to Civilian Court [Andy McCarthy]
From Philip Klein at the Spectator:
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who as a judge presided over a trial stemming from the first attack on the World Trade Center, on Friday warned that the Obama administration's decision to bring Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York, along with three other terrorist detainees, to stand trial in a civilian court, reflected a pre-9/11 mindset that viewed terrorism as a simple criminal matter.
Speaking at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention, Mukasey described the move, as “a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”
Describing a pattern of decisions made since the the Obama administration pledged in January to close Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, Mukasey said that, "What’s followed has seemed in many instances to be a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.”
He noted that Congress already authorized the trial of detainees through military commissions, and that those trials would have already been underway.
“Now, that procedure is to be short-circuited — actually, long-circuited would be more accurate — so that they could be brought to this country and tried in a civilian court," he said. "We should all be aware that those cases which were scheduled to have already begun now have to start from scratch.”
The difficulty of trying terror suspects through civilian courts, he said, is that the discovery process, the public presentation of evidence, and other elements of a trial "could turn a criminal proceeding into a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those in custody.”
He pointed out that when capturing the enemy combatants, pieces of information “were not gathered, nor was evidence gathered, on the assumption that they would be presented in a federal court.”
There would also be tremendous security issues involved with making sure that courthouses, jails, the judge and jury, were all safe.
“It would take a whole lot more credulousness than I have available to be optimistic about the outcome of this latest experiment,” Mukasey said at the conclusion of his formal remarks.
During a question and answer session that followed, Mukasey was asked if he felt the jails in New York were secure enough to make sure terrorists would not escape, but he said that wasn't really the issue.
"If you ask the wrong question, you’re sure to get the wrong answer," Mukasey responded. "Of course it’s secure. They’re not going to escape. The question is not whether they’re going to escape, the question is whether not only that facility, but the city at large will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of KSM, whether this raises the odds that it will. And I would suggest to you that it raises them very high. It is also whether the proceeding, even assuming that it goes forward within the lifetime of anybody in this room, is one where confidential information is able to be kept confidential, and a trial is able to proceed in an orderly way.”
He later added that, "to the extent that they are within prisons, they are a threat there as well. Any of these people would be a virtually totemic figure in a prison.” He argued that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid's success in challenging his solitary confinement shows that there's no guaruntee that convicted terrorists would stay isolated from the rest of the prison population....
From Philip Klein at the Spectator:
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who as a judge presided over a trial stemming from the first attack on the World Trade Center, on Friday warned that the Obama administration's decision to bring Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York, along with three other terrorist detainees, to stand trial in a civilian court, reflected a pre-9/11 mindset that viewed terrorism as a simple criminal matter.
Speaking at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention, Mukasey described the move, as “a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”
Describing a pattern of decisions made since the the Obama administration pledged in January to close Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, Mukasey said that, "What’s followed has seemed in many instances to be a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.”
He noted that Congress already authorized the trial of detainees through military commissions, and that those trials would have already been underway.
“Now, that procedure is to be short-circuited — actually, long-circuited would be more accurate — so that they could be brought to this country and tried in a civilian court," he said. "We should all be aware that those cases which were scheduled to have already begun now have to start from scratch.”
The difficulty of trying terror suspects through civilian courts, he said, is that the discovery process, the public presentation of evidence, and other elements of a trial "could turn a criminal proceeding into a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those in custody.”
He pointed out that when capturing the enemy combatants, pieces of information “were not gathered, nor was evidence gathered, on the assumption that they would be presented in a federal court.”
There would also be tremendous security issues involved with making sure that courthouses, jails, the judge and jury, were all safe.
“It would take a whole lot more credulousness than I have available to be optimistic about the outcome of this latest experiment,” Mukasey said at the conclusion of his formal remarks.
During a question and answer session that followed, Mukasey was asked if he felt the jails in New York were secure enough to make sure terrorists would not escape, but he said that wasn't really the issue.
"If you ask the wrong question, you’re sure to get the wrong answer," Mukasey responded. "Of course it’s secure. They’re not going to escape. The question is not whether they’re going to escape, the question is whether not only that facility, but the city at large will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of KSM, whether this raises the odds that it will. And I would suggest to you that it raises them very high. It is also whether the proceeding, even assuming that it goes forward within the lifetime of anybody in this room, is one where confidential information is able to be kept confidential, and a trial is able to proceed in an orderly way.”
He later added that, "to the extent that they are within prisons, they are a threat there as well. Any of these people would be a virtually totemic figure in a prison.” He argued that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid's success in challenging his solitary confinement shows that there's no guaruntee that convicted terrorists would stay isolated from the rest of the prison population....
Friday, November 13, 2009
KSM & Eric Holder's Agenda (aka the Reckoning)
Another idiotic move from Obama's Justice Dept. flunky, Eric Holder:
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Was Right [Jonah Goldberg]
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early on Friday.
KSM thought he'd get a lawyer and a civilian trial, and at the end of the day he was right.
Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . [Andy McCarthy]
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
John Yoo on KSM [Jonah Goldberg]
He writes over at The E.B.:
Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda, tie up our courts for years on issues best left to the president and Congress, and further cripple our intelligence agencies’ efforts to fight terrorists abroad.KSM and his co-defendants will have all of the benefits and rights that the U.S. Constitution accords those who live here, most importantly the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it was obtained.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Was Right [Jonah Goldberg]
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early on Friday.
KSM thought he'd get a lawyer and a civilian trial, and at the end of the day he was right.
Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . [Andy McCarthy]
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
John Yoo on KSM [Jonah Goldberg]
He writes over at The E.B.:
Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda, tie up our courts for years on issues best left to the president and Congress, and further cripple our intelligence agencies’ efforts to fight terrorists abroad.KSM and his co-defendants will have all of the benefits and rights that the U.S. Constitution accords those who live here, most importantly the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it was obtained.
Blame Game, revisited, again ....
What Bush Inherited, and What He Left Left Behind [Victor Davis Hanson]
George W. Bush inherited a recession. He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam's WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting "regime change" in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton's watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole).
In other words, Bush inherited the regular "stuff" that confronts most presidents when they take office. What is strange is that Obama has established a narrative that he, supposedly unlike any other president, inherited a mess.At some point, Team Obama might have at least acknowledged that, by January 2009, Iraq was largely quiet; Libya was free of WMD; Syria was out of Lebanon; most of the al-Qaeda leadership had been attrited or was in hiding; a homeland-security protocol was in place to deal with domestic terror plots; European governments were mostly friendly to the U.S. (unlike during the Chirac-Schröder years); and the U.S. enjoyed good relations with one-third of the planet in China and India.The fact that in the Bush years we were increasingly disliked by Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro, Chávez, Kim Jong Il, Morales, Ortega, and Putin, may in retrospect seem logical, just as their current warming to the U.S. may prove to be cause for alarm, given the repugnant nature of these strongmen.Bottom line: Obama's second year as president is coming up, and it is long past time to move on and let historians judge the Bush years.
George W. Bush inherited a recession. He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam's WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting "regime change" in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton's watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole).
In other words, Bush inherited the regular "stuff" that confronts most presidents when they take office. What is strange is that Obama has established a narrative that he, supposedly unlike any other president, inherited a mess.At some point, Team Obama might have at least acknowledged that, by January 2009, Iraq was largely quiet; Libya was free of WMD; Syria was out of Lebanon; most of the al-Qaeda leadership had been attrited or was in hiding; a homeland-security protocol was in place to deal with domestic terror plots; European governments were mostly friendly to the U.S. (unlike during the Chirac-Schröder years); and the U.S. enjoyed good relations with one-third of the planet in China and India.The fact that in the Bush years we were increasingly disliked by Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro, Chávez, Kim Jong Il, Morales, Ortega, and Putin, may in retrospect seem logical, just as their current warming to the U.S. may prove to be cause for alarm, given the repugnant nature of these strongmen.Bottom line: Obama's second year as president is coming up, and it is long past time to move on and let historians judge the Bush years.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Reagan ... qutie a contrast to what we have now
Read Peter Robinson's story in his WSJ Letter to the Editor:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527764020693266.html?mod=WSJ_topics_obama
In his account of President Ronald Reagan's June 12, 1987 Berlin Wall address ("Four Little Words," op-ed, Nov. 9) Anthony Dolan, my boss in the Reagan speechwriting shop, describes a wonderfully improbable pair of events. Both took place, Tony states, "Well before a draft was circulated."
As the speechwriter assigned to draft the address, I told Tony I wanted to include "tear down this wall." Then, in "an Oval Office meeting" just a few minutes later, President Ronald Reagan told Tony he wanted the address to say, "Tear down the wall."
"Can you believe it?" Tony claims he told me. "[the president] said just what you were thinking."
All this makes for such a marvelous story that it may seem churlish to gainsay it, but in the interest of keeping the record straight I really have no choice: Tony's memory here is mistaken.
What actually took place?
In Berlin on April 23, 1987, while conducting research, I encountered a German woman, Ingeborg Elz, who made a comment so striking that I committed it to my notebook. If Mikhail Gorbachev were serious about glasnost, she said, he could prove it by getting rid of the wall. Back at the White House I adapted this comment, making the call to tear down the wall the central passage in my draft. On May 15, 1987 my draft went to the president. On May 18, we speechwriters joined Reagan in the Oval Office.
Explaining that the address would be heard throughout East Germany, I asked the president what he would like to say to those on the Communist side of the wall. Reagan thought for a moment. "Well," he replied, "there's that passage about tearing down the wall. That wall has to come down. That's what I'd like to say to them."
Although this meeting took place after, not before, the president had seen my draft, it must represent the encounter with Reagan that Tony recalls. Why am I sure? My own notes, the recollection of Director of Communications Tom Griscom, to whom Tony and I reported, and—critical point—the documents in the Reagan Library. As I learned while researching my book, "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life," May 18 is the first date during the turbulent year of 1987 on which the White House "daily diary" shows Tony—or, for that matter, me—entering the Oval Office.
Although he mistakes the sequence of events, Tony remains invaluable on the larger matters, insisting that Reagan rejected mere containment for a policy of defeating Soviet Communism outright. Indeed Reagan did. As early as 1978, during his first visit to Berlin, Reagan insisted that the wall had to be dismantled. And in 1987, no one but Reagan would have overruled the objections of a furious State Department and National Security Council to call on Mr. Gorbachev to do just that. "Reagan spoke formally and repeatedly of deploying against criminal regimes the one weapon they fear more than military or economic sanction: the publicly-spoken truth."
Tony got that right.
Peter Robinson
Palo Alto, Calif.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527764020693266.html?mod=WSJ_topics_obama
In his account of President Ronald Reagan's June 12, 1987 Berlin Wall address ("Four Little Words," op-ed, Nov. 9) Anthony Dolan, my boss in the Reagan speechwriting shop, describes a wonderfully improbable pair of events. Both took place, Tony states, "Well before a draft was circulated."
As the speechwriter assigned to draft the address, I told Tony I wanted to include "tear down this wall." Then, in "an Oval Office meeting" just a few minutes later, President Ronald Reagan told Tony he wanted the address to say, "Tear down the wall."
"Can you believe it?" Tony claims he told me. "[the president] said just what you were thinking."
All this makes for such a marvelous story that it may seem churlish to gainsay it, but in the interest of keeping the record straight I really have no choice: Tony's memory here is mistaken.
What actually took place?
In Berlin on April 23, 1987, while conducting research, I encountered a German woman, Ingeborg Elz, who made a comment so striking that I committed it to my notebook. If Mikhail Gorbachev were serious about glasnost, she said, he could prove it by getting rid of the wall. Back at the White House I adapted this comment, making the call to tear down the wall the central passage in my draft. On May 15, 1987 my draft went to the president. On May 18, we speechwriters joined Reagan in the Oval Office.
Explaining that the address would be heard throughout East Germany, I asked the president what he would like to say to those on the Communist side of the wall. Reagan thought for a moment. "Well," he replied, "there's that passage about tearing down the wall. That wall has to come down. That's what I'd like to say to them."
Although this meeting took place after, not before, the president had seen my draft, it must represent the encounter with Reagan that Tony recalls. Why am I sure? My own notes, the recollection of Director of Communications Tom Griscom, to whom Tony and I reported, and—critical point—the documents in the Reagan Library. As I learned while researching my book, "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life," May 18 is the first date during the turbulent year of 1987 on which the White House "daily diary" shows Tony—or, for that matter, me—entering the Oval Office.
Although he mistakes the sequence of events, Tony remains invaluable on the larger matters, insisting that Reagan rejected mere containment for a policy of defeating Soviet Communism outright. Indeed Reagan did. As early as 1978, during his first visit to Berlin, Reagan insisted that the wall had to be dismantled. And in 1987, no one but Reagan would have overruled the objections of a furious State Department and National Security Council to call on Mr. Gorbachev to do just that. "Reagan spoke formally and repeatedly of deploying against criminal regimes the one weapon they fear more than military or economic sanction: the publicly-spoken truth."
Tony got that right.
Peter Robinson
Palo Alto, Calif.
Did the Democrats Steal the NY-23 Special Election ?
This is wild stuff ....
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/democrats-stole-ny23-owns-going-down-as-absentee-is-counted-and-ilegal-democrat-voter-fraud.html
Wonder what happens if it turns out that the election was fradulent and Hoffman really won ?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/democrats-stole-ny23-owns-going-down-as-absentee-is-counted-and-ilegal-democrat-voter-fraud.html
Wonder what happens if it turns out that the election was fradulent and Hoffman really won ?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Obama Berlin Wall Video: Me Me Me & Me
Tear Down This Wall [Mark Steyn]
. . . so they can get a better look at ME!!!
I've only just seen President Obama's video address to the people of Berlin. It's the now familiar mush of evasive generalities, until finally he drops the abstract nouns and cuts to the specifics:
Few would have foreseen on that day that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.
Or, as Secretary Clinton put it in her introduction to him, "Someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls." No room, alas, to mention the word "Communism" or other irrelevant details.
More from Scott Johnson.
. . . so they can get a better look at ME!!!
I've only just seen President Obama's video address to the people of Berlin. It's the now familiar mush of evasive generalities, until finally he drops the abstract nouns and cuts to the specifics:
Few would have foreseen on that day that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.
Or, as Secretary Clinton put it in her introduction to him, "Someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls." No room, alas, to mention the word "Communism" or other irrelevant details.
More from Scott Johnson.
Monday, November 9, 2009
"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall"
Leadership in support of the cause of freedom of the type you will NEVER see from Obama ...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/tear_down_this_wall_hUBoTAOCQVAGDXVUiqWk2L
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/tear_down_this_wall_hUBoTAOCQVAGDXVUiqWk2L
Class vs. No Class
You can figure it out ...
Two Profiles in Class [Rory Cooper]
This past weekend, Americans were treated to two completely different profiles in class. First there was former president George W. Bush. On Friday night, George and Laura Bush traveled by car to Fort Hood to meet with the devastated families of last week’s tragedy. They specifically asked the base commander not to alert the press, and spent hours simply doing what they could to comfort the grief-stricken families.
The story was eventually uncovered, as these moments tend to be, but clearly President Bush did not see this as a personal opportunity, nor did he want to upstage the current president. The former president saw his interactions with wounded soldiers and their families as private moments.
Twenty-four hours later, President Obama was not at Fort Hood, but rather on Capitol Hill lobbying a private meeting of Democrats, who must not have known his position on health care. Obama told the lawmakers, according to Democratic congressman Earl Blumenauer in the New York Times: “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit [Democratic voters] and it will encourage the extremists.”
Let’s dissect that statement.
First, President Obama incorrectly states that conservatives are “anti-government,” which simply is untrue. Conservatives are in favor of the government’s performing its duties efficiently and effectively. Conservatives are not in favor of the government’s running a new national health-care entitlement that will surely fail. (The House passed a bill that costs $2.4 trillion, raises taxes by $700 billion, and massively expands a bankrupt Medicaid program — all while the nation’s unemployment rate stands above 10 percent.)
More disturbing is President Obama’s labeling his opposition as “extremists” and falling just short of using the profane “teabag” epithet that is popular among dismissive liberals. This is simply beneath the office he holds. When tens of thousands of multigenerational families descended onto Capitol Hill last week, they were protesting runaway federal spending and government control. They understood that while reform of our health-care system is necessary, the answer is not to compound the problem while ignoring uninsured Americans. These are not extreme views.
President Obama won a short-lived victory this weekend on health care, but he clearly misread the tea leaves if he believes that conservative Democrats will get more support in their home districts for supporting this disastrous plan. These electoral matters are not helped by the president’s demonization of a respectful and vigilant opposition to this government intrusion into their lives.While President Bush was at Fort Hood consoling the victims of real radical extremism, President Obama was in Washington calling American families who don’t support his health-care plan “extremists.” A more enlightening profile of the two men could not be found.
— Rory Cooper is director of strategic communications at the Heritage Foundation.
Two Profiles in Class [Rory Cooper]
This past weekend, Americans were treated to two completely different profiles in class. First there was former president George W. Bush. On Friday night, George and Laura Bush traveled by car to Fort Hood to meet with the devastated families of last week’s tragedy. They specifically asked the base commander not to alert the press, and spent hours simply doing what they could to comfort the grief-stricken families.
The story was eventually uncovered, as these moments tend to be, but clearly President Bush did not see this as a personal opportunity, nor did he want to upstage the current president. The former president saw his interactions with wounded soldiers and their families as private moments.
Twenty-four hours later, President Obama was not at Fort Hood, but rather on Capitol Hill lobbying a private meeting of Democrats, who must not have known his position on health care. Obama told the lawmakers, according to Democratic congressman Earl Blumenauer in the New York Times: “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit [Democratic voters] and it will encourage the extremists.”
Let’s dissect that statement.
First, President Obama incorrectly states that conservatives are “anti-government,” which simply is untrue. Conservatives are in favor of the government’s performing its duties efficiently and effectively. Conservatives are not in favor of the government’s running a new national health-care entitlement that will surely fail. (The House passed a bill that costs $2.4 trillion, raises taxes by $700 billion, and massively expands a bankrupt Medicaid program — all while the nation’s unemployment rate stands above 10 percent.)
More disturbing is President Obama’s labeling his opposition as “extremists” and falling just short of using the profane “teabag” epithet that is popular among dismissive liberals. This is simply beneath the office he holds. When tens of thousands of multigenerational families descended onto Capitol Hill last week, they were protesting runaway federal spending and government control. They understood that while reform of our health-care system is necessary, the answer is not to compound the problem while ignoring uninsured Americans. These are not extreme views.
President Obama won a short-lived victory this weekend on health care, but he clearly misread the tea leaves if he believes that conservative Democrats will get more support in their home districts for supporting this disastrous plan. These electoral matters are not helped by the president’s demonization of a respectful and vigilant opposition to this government intrusion into their lives.While President Bush was at Fort Hood consoling the victims of real radical extremism, President Obama was in Washington calling American families who don’t support his health-care plan “extremists.” A more enlightening profile of the two men could not be found.
— Rory Cooper is director of strategic communications at the Heritage Foundation.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Doing The Barney ...
Among the many Congressional leaders most Americans surely admire, is Barney Frank:
Barney Frank's Keen Eye For Crime [Greg Pollowitz]
You gotta love his excuse:
FOX25 has learned that Congressman Barney Frank was present during a marijuana arrest at James Ready's home in Ogunquit, Maine. Ready is well-known for his relationship with Congressman Frank.
According to a police report, police charged Ready with marijuana possession, cultivation and use of drug paraphernalia in August of 2007. Ready admitted to civil possession and paid a fine. The remaining charges were dismissed in 2008.
Sources tell FOX25 that when Frank was questioned he told police that he did not live in the house and that he only smoked cigars.
Congressman Frank tells FOX25 that he was surprised and disappointed with what police found. He also tells us that he wouldn't recognize a marijuana plant if he saw one because he is, "not a great outdoorsman," and ,"wouldn't recognize most plants."
Barney Frank's Keen Eye For Crime [Greg Pollowitz]
You gotta love his excuse:
FOX25 has learned that Congressman Barney Frank was present during a marijuana arrest at James Ready's home in Ogunquit, Maine. Ready is well-known for his relationship with Congressman Frank.
According to a police report, police charged Ready with marijuana possession, cultivation and use of drug paraphernalia in August of 2007. Ready admitted to civil possession and paid a fine. The remaining charges were dismissed in 2008.
Sources tell FOX25 that when Frank was questioned he told police that he did not live in the house and that he only smoked cigars.
Congressman Frank tells FOX25 that he was surprised and disappointed with what police found. He also tells us that he wouldn't recognize a marijuana plant if he saw one because he is, "not a great outdoorsman," and ,"wouldn't recognize most plants."
ObamaCare update
Well, now the House has a disaster of a bill; 1200 pages of tax and spend government run healthcare disaster monstrosity.
Mark Steyn on the Obama playbook:
If It Were Done When 'Tis Done, Then 'Twere Well It Were Done Quickly [Mark Steyn]
I don't like to say I told you so, but I've been saying for months now that the trick is to drag this thing across the finish line with 50.0000000000001 percent of the vote as soon as possible.
From my "Happy Warrior" column in NR back in July:
Obama believes in “the fierce urgency of now”, and fierce it is. That’s where all the poor befuddled sober centrists who can’t understand why the Democrats keep passing incoherent 1,200-page bills every week are missing the point. If “health care” were about health care, the devil would be in the details. But it’s not about health or costs or coverage; it’s about getting over the river and burning the bridge. It doesn’t matter what form of governmentalized health care gets passed as long as it passes. Once it’s in place, it will be “reformed”, endlessly, but it will never be undone.
Right now, they can trade anything — abortion, death panels, whatever. The trick is to plant the seed and let the ratchet effect of Big Government take care of the rest. I said on Rush's show on Friday that if Barack Obama had been Bill Clinton he'd have woken up on Wednesday morning and begun triangulating. Instead, Obama woke up and figured that he needed more fierce urgency, and right now. The short-term hit in 2010 is worth it for the long-term benefits: Obscure congressmen will be just as happy as obscure ambassadors or obscure chairmen of obscure agencies. And the prize of permanent irreversible statist annexation merits the risk: Governmentalized "health care" puts us on the fast track to Euro-sclerosis and redefines the relationship between citizen and state in ways that make genuine conservative politics all but impossible.
Will the Senate stop it? And, if they don't, will a post-2010 GOP Congress reverse it? The way they reversed, say, the federal Department of Education?
Yesterday was a tragedy for America. Hence, the Bard in the headline. And while I'm quoting Macbeth, let me cite Mrs. Thatcher on who gets stuck with the tab for all of this:
'To borrow and to borrow and to borrow' is not Macbeth with a heavy cold. It is Labour Party policy. Most people do not want to mortgage the future and leave their children to pick up the bill.
"Most" people? We'll see about that.
Mark Steyn on the Obama playbook:
If It Were Done When 'Tis Done, Then 'Twere Well It Were Done Quickly [Mark Steyn]
I don't like to say I told you so, but I've been saying for months now that the trick is to drag this thing across the finish line with 50.0000000000001 percent of the vote as soon as possible.
From my "Happy Warrior" column in NR back in July:
Obama believes in “the fierce urgency of now”, and fierce it is. That’s where all the poor befuddled sober centrists who can’t understand why the Democrats keep passing incoherent 1,200-page bills every week are missing the point. If “health care” were about health care, the devil would be in the details. But it’s not about health or costs or coverage; it’s about getting over the river and burning the bridge. It doesn’t matter what form of governmentalized health care gets passed as long as it passes. Once it’s in place, it will be “reformed”, endlessly, but it will never be undone.
Right now, they can trade anything — abortion, death panels, whatever. The trick is to plant the seed and let the ratchet effect of Big Government take care of the rest. I said on Rush's show on Friday that if Barack Obama had been Bill Clinton he'd have woken up on Wednesday morning and begun triangulating. Instead, Obama woke up and figured that he needed more fierce urgency, and right now. The short-term hit in 2010 is worth it for the long-term benefits: Obscure congressmen will be just as happy as obscure ambassadors or obscure chairmen of obscure agencies. And the prize of permanent irreversible statist annexation merits the risk: Governmentalized "health care" puts us on the fast track to Euro-sclerosis and redefines the relationship between citizen and state in ways that make genuine conservative politics all but impossible.
Will the Senate stop it? And, if they don't, will a post-2010 GOP Congress reverse it? The way they reversed, say, the federal Department of Education?
Yesterday was a tragedy for America. Hence, the Bard in the headline. And while I'm quoting Macbeth, let me cite Mrs. Thatcher on who gets stuck with the tab for all of this:
'To borrow and to borrow and to borrow' is not Macbeth with a heavy cold. It is Labour Party policy. Most people do not want to mortgage the future and leave their children to pick up the bill.
"Most" people? We'll see about that.
WOW ... somebody needs to answer for this
Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration
A coherent strategy to address 21st century threats to the United States, one that treats national and homeland security as a seamless whole, has yet to emerge... To help fuel this process, in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners... The goal was to determine the top strategic priorities to advance the nation’s security in the coming decade...
Event Participants:
...Amanda Halpern U.S. House of Representatives
Beth Hampton Homeland Security Institute
Nidal Hasan Uniformed Services University School of Medicine
Donald HawkinsU.S. Department of Homeland Security
Eric HeighbergerHomeland Security Council...
That's quite the company for a deranged misfit loner whacko of no broader significance.
I believe it was Derb a few months after 9/11 who said that for this new struggle our watchword was "Better screwed than rude." Major Hasan represents the institutionalization of that attitude. Thirteen people are dead, dozens more will live with their injuries for the rest of their days, and a lot of families have had a great big gaping hole blown out of their lives because of it.
A coherent strategy to address 21st century threats to the United States, one that treats national and homeland security as a seamless whole, has yet to emerge... To help fuel this process, in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners... The goal was to determine the top strategic priorities to advance the nation’s security in the coming decade...
Event Participants:
...Amanda Halpern U.S. House of Representatives
Beth Hampton Homeland Security Institute
Nidal Hasan Uniformed Services University School of Medicine
Donald HawkinsU.S. Department of Homeland Security
Eric HeighbergerHomeland Security Council...
That's quite the company for a deranged misfit loner whacko of no broader significance.
I believe it was Derb a few months after 9/11 who said that for this new struggle our watchword was "Better screwed than rude." Major Hasan represents the institutionalization of that attitude. Thirteen people are dead, dozens more will live with their injuries for the rest of their days, and a lot of families have had a great big gaping hole blown out of their lives because of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
