Obama and Clinton Introduce First Stage of Appeasement Policy
Posted in Public Affairs, Bush, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, Clinton, Afghanistan, United States, obama, hillary, Foreign Affairs, Military, 9/11 on January 25th, 2009 by Stanford MatthewsEvery now and then one can recognize the use of artistic license by the author of a news report. Such is the case with at least part of the report below. But it fits nicely into the argument on this blog that President Obama is not a WYSIWYG politician. As evidenced by the phenomenon known as Obamania or some similar term there is a tendency in this nation to accept all of Mr Obama’s actions as right, above reproach, divine or in some way superhuman as the saving grace to whisk away all that ails the world.
President Obama’s executive orders related to Gitmo are not ‘designed , in part, to improve America’s image in the world.’ Almost simultaneously former Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted her confirmation as Secretary of State expressing that of the three ‘D’s in US foreign policy, defense, diplomacy and development only the last two would be targeted. Later in the piece below the real reason for President Obama’s instant use of executive orders on Gitmo are made clear. Activists and foreign governments have complained. Human rights activists and ‘many legal experts’ call the military trials unfair. Imagine that. Activists, foreign governments and most likely defense attorneys oppose Gitmo.
The rhetoric of playing by the rules, adhering to our values and other platitudes disguise the nature of the Obama philosophy. Kindly remember that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama spent much of his youth with Frank Marshall Davis. Barack Obama and his Marxist and socialist influences combined with Republican turned lefty Hillary Rodham Clinton and the rest of the clan that followed her to the Clinton Obama Administration are proving by their actions what most of us new before the election. An Obama Presidency will lead this country toward socialism and the weak-kneed appeasement policies reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. Maybe that is why Obama and ACORN focused on the youth vote in America. Being mostly oblivious to history they probably have no clue who Mr Chamberlain was and the significance of a reference to him on this topic.
Change you can believe in is correct. You can believe the change will not be a good thing. And you might find it interesting in the piece below that while the Bush Administration receives an inordinate amount of criticism on this topic Mr Obama ‘would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.’ Making good on a campaign promise is the excuse now and the harsh criticism does not need to be repeated as the gesture says it all. Make yourself look good to your supporters who have lost some confidence while quietly bashing your predecessor and setting up an appeasement policy with rhetoric.
The community organizer strikes again.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
“Rehab:” Gitmo recidivists thumb their noses in new video (Michelle Malkin)
| Obama Orders on Guantanamo and Interrogations Reverse Bush Policies | |
Washington January 2009 |
President Obama’s executive orders Thursday Jan 22nd, closing the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center and banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques, fulfill a campaign promise and impose major policy changes designed, in part, to improve America’s image in the world.
It was a dramatic moment at the White House on Thursday morning. As cameras clicked in front of him, President Obama said he was ordering all U.S. government agencies to abide by the restrictive interrogation rules published by the U.S. Army two years ago, and that he was ordering the closure of any prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and said “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”
The president also ordered an inspection of the Guantanamo facility to ensure it complies with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws. He also canceled a 2007 order by former-President Bush that opened the door to harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, and told all U.S. government agencies to ignore Bush administration decisions about what is allowed and what is not.
But President Obama did say he would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.
The president also suspended the military trials at Guantanamo, which human rights activists and many legal experts have branded as unfair.
The closing of the detention center and the end of those trials have long been sought by activists and many foreign governments. Some detainees were held in harsh conditions in the years immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Although conditions have improved and the government says harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, Guantanamo has become a symbol of excess in the war on terrorism.
At Human Rights Watch in Washington, attorney Jennifer Daskal welcomed President Obama’s moves. “With the stroke of a pen, the new Barack Obama administration has put the United States back on a humane and rule-of-law-respecting course, and rejected the abusive practices of the last 7 1/2 years. These orders will go an enormous way toward restoring America’s image all around the world,” he said.
President Obama said that was part of what he wanted to do. “The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly; we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”
President Obama started a process on Thursday that his predecessor, George W. Bush, also said he wanted to do but never did.
The former president and his spokesmen cited the difficulties of placing detainees in other countries and concerns about what to do with detainees who the government says are too dangerous to release, but cannot be put on trial because the evidence against them is secret or tainted by alleged torture. They also said 61 of the approximately 500 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorism.
At a news conference shortly after the executive orders were signed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only Bush cabinet member asked to stay in his job — said those difficult issues have not gone away.
GATES: “These are just issues that we will have to work through with the new administration. And some of the legal issues, which are really outside our purview, are the things that the Justice Department and the White House Counsel and so on will be working on.”
PESSIN: “But is there some option out there that you identified before, but was rejected by the Bush Administration, particularly with regard to those that you can’t release and can’t put on trial?”
GATES: “I don’t think so.”
Secretary Gates indicated he does not know exactly how the issues will be settled, but he noted that since the November presidential election, a few countries have expressed interest in taking some of the detainees from Guantanamo — reversing their previous refusals.
The Secretary, who is also a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said he is not concerned about the new restrictions on interrogators. He indicated that whatever advantage the harsh techniques might provide is no longer needed.
“We know a lot more about al-Qaida now than we did in the early years of the administration, the early years after September 11, 2001. And personally, I believe that the need for measures that go outside the Army Field Manual is dramatically less than it was several years ago,” he said.
Secretary Gates is a member of all three task forces President Obama formed on Thursday to decide how to close the Guantanamo detention center, what to do with its detainees and how to handle detainees and interrogations in the future. President Obama wants answers from his new task forces within six months.
The president’s orders do not pre-judge the issues, but they do call on the officials involved to consider transferring some Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons and trying them in regular civilian U.S. courts. Some of the detainees have been held for more than seven years without charges or trials.
The reason ‘few have focused on this’ demonstrates two facts. That liberals are a feeble choice on matters of national security and foreign policy is no myth otherwise the concern over their preference for surrender and appeasement would not be so well known or misrepresented by Power as a myth. Even their party leader, President-elect Barack Obama will not admit those opposed to the troop surge in Iraq were wrong. The second fact is the DNC is in a ‘position’ by virtue of a Presidential election victory but there is nothing to support it as a ’strong position’. The rhetoric of an ‘eight year nightmare’ continues the empty dialogue of the left who will not face the fact that we have not been attacked again since 9/11.
There have been too many instances lately in which Barack Obama invites criticism. This is just too easy. If you haven’t yet done the heavy lifting to develop a plan to increase jobs how did you choose a number like 2.5 million? Better yet, if you haven’t officially put together an economic team, how do you know they can deliver? Will this be another announced plan which afterwards must be scaled down because reality will not allow it to happen as advertised? As Mr Obama stated in his speeches after the election, his time as President will not be without setbacks and mistakes. Maybe to ‘hit the ground running’ in January he thought it might be helpful to get some of those pesky mistakes out of his bag of tricks early.
Those supporting the new President-elect most heartily urge others to withhold judgment at least until his first official day in office. But that may be the only urging his support can muster as nothing since the election suggests an Obama Administration will be change outside of the fact that President Bush will be leaving office and Barack Obama will be entering.
Napolitano presides over a southwest border state and has been praised for her handling of immigration and homeland security issues. The governor’s Web site says Napolitano is a national voice in calling for the federal government to take responsibility for securing the nation’s borders.
In Washington, incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is to meet with Congressional Republican leaders to discuss how best to work together. Emanuel has said Mr. Obama plans to govern in a bipartisan fashion during his term in office.
In other Cabinet selections, Democratic officials say Mr. Obama’s pick for the Department of Health and Human Services, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has accepted the job.
Separately, there is still speculation that Mr. Obama’s former Democratic rival for the White House, Senator Hillary Clinton, will join his Cabinet as secretary of state.
diplomat.
When the abstract alone of the candidate tax plans describes them as poor or poorly targeted a closer look would be needed to find support for the NYT claim that Obama’s plan is better for anyone. In the excerpt below one caveat comes from the NYT’s own description that ‘Mr Obama would GENERALLY cut taxes more’ and leaves one with the feeling someone is splitting hairs on this appraisal. And where does the so-called independent analysis state those under $250K would not see a tax increase? And this doesn’t even come close to explaining where Obama gets the money to pay for his trillion dollar spending proposal. Gouging the small group of wealthy citizens who pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country won’t cover it.
The summary and review includes the well known fact that the FBI is investigating ACORN. Anita Moncrief, a former ACORN employee turned whistleblower, has testified in PA state court of ACORN’s wrongdoing. Obama has lied but Obama is tied to ACORN back to 1995 and maybe before then.
Using just the ACORN estimate of 1.3 million registrations gives another estimate of over a half million illegal registrations. And that is not even a precise measure of how bad this thing could be. And Obama gave $800000 or more dollars to ACORN for ‘get out the vote’ efforts. How about calling it what it is, a stuff the ballot box effort by the Messiah.
The view from this blog is that the House was unable to pass the massive bailout bill because those fearing election defeats voted for the bill. When it failed, Congress in their 12% approval rating mentality decided to hand it over to the Senate as re-election is viewed as not a problem for them. With that in mind this blog finds it reassuring that in the NO vote area below, Senators Sessions, Shelby and DeMint are listed. If memory serves, their voting records on illegal immigration and other issues were respectable as well.
Remember how it all started for John McCain’s VP selection? 
The less than inspiring tactics of the kook fringe were not lost on their Messiah either as one of his campaign ads criticized John McCain as being out of touch for not using technology like the PC and email. Did they really not know that Mr McCain is not able to do some of those things as a result of injuries sustained while a POW? McCain was also criticized for referencing his service to country by what those critics claimed was overuse of the topic. Perhaps the reason why they did this is that their own candidate has no similar history to report. And the Messiah is all too willing to sidestep questions about his affiliations with domestic terrorist William Ayers as well as Rev Wright and Tony Rezko. Which makes it hard to believe that his campaign reference to ‘lipstick on a pig’ was not a shot directed at Sarah Palin especially when he used it so soon after her campaign quip about hockey mom’s and pitbulls.
By luck of the draw Obama is seeing some renewed interest as the polls may suggest simply because the current financial troubles favor the opponents of the party occupying the White House. Considering the fierce battle between Bush and McCain in the 2000 primaries it is hard to fathom how anyone really sees the two as similar. Obama’s reference to McCain voting with the White House ninety percent of the time is a lame argument. If you study the voting records of most politicians that will be the likely result. Most politicians vote with their party unless they need political cover. Sort of like the Senate voting for a bailout when the House did not. House members are mostly up for re-election while that is not the case in the Senate.
Sound bites, shifting positions, the search for political cover and more delays from Washington which may prove to be the best medicine for for the so-called financial crisis. One quote from John McCain offered by the press relates to the need for the government to do something.
Here’s a view for you. Who is responsible for allowing the bank deregulation? 
they receive deposits, including low income areas, is a good thing. The Dems signed on as it is right up their alley in terms of their claim to champion the little guy and help the less fortunate. So Fannie and Freddie begin increasing their involvement with low income lending. Over the years money flowed to Dems from Fannie and Freddie, more loans were packaged and as the real estate market bubbled and prices rose dramatically. When the classic good credit market was saturated, deregulated banks, Fannie and Freddie and others expanded whom they would lend to and reduced minimums to cover just about everyone. And the money kept pouring into the Dems wallets. While everyone looked the other way and got fat and happy the bubble burst.
Talk of new momentum for the McCain/Palin ticket must be making the Democratic party crazy. A report from WaPo credits McCain’s VP selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for VP as causing a 20 point swing in support from white women from the Dems to the GOP.
If there are the now famous 18 million Clinton voters from the primary elections and 20%, or 3.6 million are not voting for Obama, that could mean McCain/Palin had close to 4 million of Obama’s party voting for them simply by announcing the selection of Palin or even without her on the ticket. But that is the problem with bits and pieces of polling data. It always leaves you needing more information about the data and it is hard to tell what significance, if any, is demonstrated by polling data.
Which brings to mind one of the fine examples of the few remaining journalistic practitioners on the planet; George Will. If you already read columns by George Will you need no prodding by this blog to continue. If you are not familiar or have not read his material, you should. The style of writing alone is enough to bring back readers. Combine that with inspiring viewpoints, apparent knowledge and historical references provided, George Will is a must read. In these days with an abundance of media hacks, it suggests there may be hope for journalism yet. (Okay, enough uncompensated plugging for George Will)
The reviews are still rolling out on Senator John McCain’s address to the RNC accepting the nomination of his party for President of the United States. An AP report provides a title that does not do its content justice. Rather than suggest that McCain’s speech did not compare to others this week it should have expressed the better than expected reaction from the usual suspects in the MSM.
As long as this is about the media coverage of McCain’s RNC address it might as well continue on the media reaction to criticism directed at them. For some in the MSM as well as the public to focus on Sarah Palin’s family as fair game the LA Times report below offers a mixed reaction to the charge of media bias or ‘piling on’ when it comes to the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. But the commentary by Roger Simon from Politico seems to miss the point even if done deliberately.
Palin’s name was largely ignored by the MSM as being on McCain’s short list for VP but it was out there. For the NYT (and others) to claim her selection was such a shocker and that Obama’s staff was not smart enough to prepare for her is simply an excuse. To deflect criticism that the media dropped the ball on this one as well as the Obama campaign. The same campaign staff Obama has to chastise regularly for mistakes caused by the annointed one’s inability to manage them. And he wants to be President.
