Today on Blogcritics
Home » Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice

Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The upside of being a Liberty Republican is that when either party gets elected there's always some reason to be hopeful. When the Republicans get elected we can hope for fiscal responsibility, smaller government and robust capitalism. When the Democrats get elected we can hope for some progress on civil liberties and social issues. The downside is that this also means we can be disappointed when the parties don't follow through on the more positive parts of their agendas. For the last eight years the Republicans let us down pretty consistently, failing to live up to their promise of smaller government and fiscal responsibility and giving only a few small victories on issues like gun rights and taxes. Now it looks like the Obama administration is setting us up for another round of disappointments as they move to the center and pass up the opportunity to take genuinely liberal positions on social issues.

The Clinton administration was certainly known for its weakness on social issues and civil liberties outrages. Clinton escalated the drug war and established the farcical "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. His Attorney General, Janet Reno, oversaw a bumper crop of civil rights abuses including the Mt. Carmel massacre, the suppression of the Freemen in Montana, the return of Elian Gonzales to Cuba and the erroneous leak of Richard Jewell's name as the Olympic bomber. The fact that Obama has chosen to bring so many Clinton appointees into his administration raises the concern that he will follow the same pattern and has little interest in protecting civil rights or making progress on social issues.

Most troubling is his recent choice of DC lawyer Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder held the second position at the Justice Department under Reno and later under John Aschcroft.  Before that, he was US Attorney for the District of Columbia. In those two jobs, his record on civil liberties issues was truly abominable.

Holder was one of the lead figures in the midnight military-style assault and forced deportation of little Elian Gonzalez. It was a long time ago, but the images of a little kid being dragged off by force to the dictatorial darkness of Castro's Cuba by agents of the US government was one of the first things which began to open our eyes to the fact that something has gone very wrong with justice and law enforcement in the United States. He also defended a company accused of paying for the support of death squads in Colombia and other human rights violations. At the end of the Clinton administration, he even promoted Clinton's pardons for 16 FALN terrorists and politically connected megacriminal Mark Rich. Hard though it is to believe, these are just footnotes; there are much worse things on his record.

Holder has been a rampaging drug warrior, advocating much harsher drug laws for the District of Columbia, including making simple possession of marijuana a felony, and harsh minimum sentences for drug users. In an interview, he said,  "We really have to concentrate on the hard-core drug users that continue to use drugs, continue to have negative impacts on the communities in which they live, and so we have to redouble our efforts I think in that regard." His choice to focus on punishing users over dealers or importers is the kind of inhumane policy which has uselessly filled our jails with minor drug offenders.

Throughout his career, Holder has adamantly opposed gun rights, supporting the Clinton efforts to restrict gun sales, enthusiastically enforcing the DC gun ban and even filing a brief to try to stop the Supreme Court from striking down the ban in DC vs. Heller, which said,  "The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that Is unrelated to participation In a well-regulated militia." He also proposed a new law providing "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale," and has advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on gun sales, limiting handgun sales to no more than one per month and even totally banning possession of handguns.

Perhaps worst of all, Holder has advocated laws restricting freedom of speech on the internet, saying:

"It seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions…reasonable regulations on how people interact on the internet, that is something which the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at."

Holder's record on free speech and dissent is bad in other areas as well. After 9/11 he condemned those who might try to obstruct government power in pursuit of terrorists on the grounds of civil rights; he was even part of the legal team which looked at ways to get the PATRIOT Act reauthorized in 2005. It turns out he also wants to take away internet porn, as indicated in a 1998 Justice Department memo:

"In particular, priority also should be given to large-scale distributors of obscenity over the Internet. Because of the nature of the Internet and the availability of agents trained in conducting criminal investigations in cyberspace, investigation and prosecution of Internet obscenity is particularly suitable for federal resources."

With such a terrible record on so many issues, I was surprised to find that Holder had never taken a position opposing gay rights and gay marriage. I guess that issue never crossed his desk. It can be argued that Holder was following the policies given to him by bosses from successive administrations, but he certainly made no effort to question or challenge any of the abusive and unconstitutional programs which he has spearheaded.

For years, Eric Holder  has worked to degrade our civil liberties and weaken the Constitution and the values which on which our nation was founded. That Obama should have picked him for Attorney General is a very discouraging sign for those of us who had hoped to see liberal policies on social issues and more respect for human rights and individual liberty from this administration. It's past time to see a liberalization of marijuana laws and the basic rights to free speech and self-defense should never be abridged.  Holder is one of the bad guys. He's not the kind of change people were looking for from this administration.

If you didn't like Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft or Janet Reno and their oppressive and draconian policies, you ought to be really worried about Eric Holder, who seems to be their most gung-ho ideological successor.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Back in the 1990’s I would have thought little of someone like Holder. That is to say that he would not have annoyed me at all. My main interest was the fiscally responsible policies that Clinton was following in keeping down the deficit.

    Banning internet porn, for example, didn’t bother me one bit. I barely surfed the internet in those days, spending most of my hours hustling Whopper sandwiches, writing short stories, or trying to teach my kids right from wrong. If the government wanted to get rid of internet porn for me, so that my kids (had they the brains to figure out how to operate the computer then) should decide to check out all the “goodies” to be seen, it was doing me a favor.

    Today, I’m in a different place, in many ways. American fiscal irresponsibility is bound to affect us negatively in Israel, but in the end, it is an American problem, as Israelis will do what they can to divorce themselves from your misfortunes.

    But what little remains of American democracy and freedom can easily be destroyed by an illiberal “Justice” Department.

    While this article is liberally sprinkled with guilt by association, it does not appear that Holder is one of the “white hats” (pun intended).

    Again, I feel sorry for the lot of you. You never really had a choice, having to pick between McCain and Obama. The election appeared Obama’s to lose almost from the day he sewed up the nomination and the financial melt-down sewed it up for him.

    I know it’s the kind of thing you do not want to know about, but Obama is found encoded (every seventh letter at equal-letter-skips) in Ezekiel 38:2-3 starting from the last Hebrew letter of the word nasí “aleph” and going through until his name is spelled out in Hebrew, using the common Hebrew spelling used in the Hebrew press for the last several months since Obama had emerged as a serious Democratic contender.

    The phrase in Hebrew holding the code is nasí, rosh meshekh v’tubál, v’hinavé aláv; v’amárta ko amár HASHEM Tr. “president (or prince) of Meshekh and Tubal and prophecy upon him; and you will say, ‘thus says My L-rd G-d'”

    Gog is not a good guy in Hebrew prophecy, Dave; in fact, he is a class “A” SOB who attacks Israel and dies on the mountains here. If Gog is a bad guy, his appointees will also be bad guys….

    You are not wrong to worry about keeping your weapons under the coming regime. You’ll need them.

  • Hope and Change?

    Gee…whats with Barry’s bait and switch?

  • bliffle

    I’m not fond of Holder either, for the reasons stated. And Geithner looks like a dud, too. Obama already has enough trouble with Clinton in his cabinet to keep his attention occupied. I suspect some turnover in the early days of this administration.

    Does anyone know what has been going on with Elian? Was the interest in him only political?

  • pablo

    Although I dislike Nalle for numerous reasons, I agree with most of this article concerning CFR stooge Holder.

  • Clavos

    Does anyone know what has been going on with Elian

    He’s still in Cuba, and his US relatives are still trying to get him back through the courts, but he’s with his father in Cuba, so they’re not likely to succeed.

    Meanwhile, Fidel trots both of them out for propaganda purposes on Elian’s birthday and a variety of revolution holidays; the stupid Miami Herald plays into Fidel’s hands, obligingly publishing their picture and a short article on each such occasion.

  • Les Slater

    I have pointed out repeatedly that whomever got elected president, the attacks on democratic rights would deepen. I particularly pointed out that there was no objective reason to think Obama would be an exception.

    This is true of most policy that Oboma team will be implementing. It is just a continuation. Not a straight line continuation but a continuation nonetheless.

    Military? Hawk Clinton in State, Gates, head of ‘defense’.

    Economic? Pretty much a continuation of the turn Bush administration has already begun. McCain would be doing same.

    The capitalist class, the SAME capitalist class still rules.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “For years, Eric Holder has worked to degrade our civil liberties and weaken the Constitution and the values which on which our nation was founded. That Obama should have picked him for Attorney General is a very discouraging sign for those of us who had hoped to see liberal policies on social issues and more respect for human rights and individual liberty from this administration.”

    On the other hand, he opposes the death penalty and has been critical of warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding and other delightful Bush policies.

    Oh, and his support for the Rich pardon was cool at best. He hardly spearheaded it.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Les, it’s amazing how irrelevant your viewpoint is. While it was inevitable that the new administration would be more or less capitalist, there was certainly a LOT of question about what the specific policies would be. We had reason to hope for radicalism on at least a few key issues. The same might have been true with McCain. But what we got with Obama seems to have been more generic statism.

    And Dr. D. Note the very clear ideological nature of what Holder supports and opposes. Like so many on the left he favors gross violations of the rights of millions, while opposing specific and targeted abuses against a tiny few.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Dread, I don’t want a top man at Justice who lets himself get railroaded into a politically-motivated pardon. A pardon is arguably the most powerful thing a president can do. The fact that Holder gave a hasty answer doesn’t make him any less complicit. They say that character is what you do in the dark; it’s also what you do on your last day at work. Because you know what? Pardons don’t have to be put off until the last day, and there’s a Pardons Attorney at Justice Department who serves to coordinate pardons and make recommendations. Holder saw fit to ignore the chain of command and give a recommendation in favor of an irrevocable act which bypasses the legal system. He shouldn’t be allowed back into government.

  • Les Slater

    “We had reason to hope for radicalism on at least a few key issues.”

    Such hope had no rational basis.

    The fact that Obama is the executive leader of the U.S. capitalist class in a deepening crisis is the only relevance. All else is subordinate.

    It is the capitalist class itself that is running out of options. Whomever they pick for their chief executive is bound to reflect those lack of options.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, I don’t know enough about Holder to have an opinion on whether or not the man is a suitable choice as attorney-general.

    But when Dave gets on his hyperbolic high horse, basically portraying Holder as the Genghis Khan of civil liberties, and when people who wouldn’t normally agree with him start doing so, it’s time for him to be challenged.

    Here, as with so much else, there is no black and white; only shades of gray. I’m just pointing out a few of the nuances.

  • Les Slater

    Dr. D,

    “…just pointing out a few of the nuances.”

    They’re nice to know and appreciate… but don’t put too much faith that they will in any sense be decisive, either way.

    It isn’t that there will not be any democratic gains in the coming administration and beyond, but these will be won by social forces in motion.

    Les

  • Baronius

    Dread, most of us have been reading long enough to recognize when Dave’s on or near his high horse. That doesn’t make him wrong.

    I understand that Holder wasn’t bribed into an unethical decision. Instead he claims he was sloppy. That doesn’t make him qualified to be AG; it only changes the reason he’s unqualified.

    I know I’m going to disagree with the ideology of all of Obama’s picks, but it’s Obama’s right to bring in the team that represents his beliefs. I wish them and him all the best. I’m no “liberty Republican”, so I’m not expecting any silver lining. My reason for disappointment is very different from Dave’s. When the chips are down, Holder’s judgement can’t be trusted, and I can’t think of a worse place for such a person than the Attorney General’s office.

  • Cindy D

    Dave,

    Where does that myth about Republicans actually being the party of small government and fiscal responsibility come from?

    Like so many on left he favors gross violations of the rights of millions, while opposing specific and targeted abuses against a tiny few.

    Dave that reads like what the left might say about any right-winger.

    Anyway Dave, good article.

    I think Les was one of the few people making sense pre-election. He still is.

  • http://www.thepolitikos.com Heloise

    Are we forgetting is that before John Edwards stepped in crap of his own making he was looking like a shoo-in for AG. What say you on that Dave? I think JE is just a pretty face and never wanted him to be prez. Irony is that if he had been the nominee we wouldn’t be having this conversation because that horrible confused McCain/Pain would have won.

    So much for anti-intellectuals running from the WH. At least we have some think economics coming to the WH and not more of the same Paulson types.

    Forbes was it called Paulson the WORSE Fed chief ever!!! They must have read my crazy comment about him not being fit to hold my grannies tits while she washed under them…’nuf said?

    Heloise

  • Cindy D

    I think I’ll write an article soon Dave. It’s going to be about how much I am enjoying all my “freedom” in your capitalist society.

    Subtitle: How can a society be free with so many authoritarians running around trying to control every single thing anyone does?

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian
  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Heloise –

    That’s a “not fit for” insult I haven’t heard before! And there it was I thought I’d heard it all….

    Thanks -

  • Cindy D

    Dave,

    Is there somewhere in your “free” society I can go to complain about this? I think I’d like to opt out.:

    Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday.

    Wow, what was all the hullabaloo over 700 billion? That almost sounds like chicken scratch.

    bliffle, did you see this? Do these numbers keep getting bigger or is it my imagination?

  • Baronius

    I have no reason to believe that Geithner will represent a change in Treasury policy. He’s head of the NY Federal Reserve, which holds something like 90% of the subprime mortgage debt. Geithner was the brains behind the bailouts of Bear Stearns and AIG.

    Cindy, you’re reading those numbers right.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, you’re not paying attention. This is not MY free society. In my free society the government probably wouldn’t even have the authority to mint money, much less engage in financial bailouts.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    “…you’re not paying attention. This is not MY free society.”

    John Galt is just a figment of your imagination.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dave spent many months and oceans of words telling us that the abuses of the Bush Justice Department – in particular the politicizing of the firing and appointment of US attorneys – were ‘not important,’ and were just red herrings invented by the media and the left.

    Now, before Eric Holder has even been officially announced, much less confirmed, still less spent a single day in office, he is proclaimed to be Enemy Number One of Civil Liberties.

    Attorneys General don’t generally make policy. They carry out the policy of the president. And I don’t for a minute believe Obama will promote the kinds of stances Dave emphasizes in this typically propagandistic, one-sided article.

    Instead, I suspect he will work to undo some of Bush-Gonzales-Ashcroft’s damage, in the definition of torture and the future of Guantanamo, as well as the politicization of Justice.

  • pablo

    Really Handguy?

    And how about the Patriot Act, the Military commissions Act, the unlawful naming of us citizens as enemy combatants? He already showed his true colors on the Wiretap bill, where he went back on his word and endorsed the police state.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    It’s almost fun reading about the change you are not getting in America. Let’s wait for that first big foreign policy crisis that Obama has to face on his own.

  • Clavos

    It’s almost fun reading about the change you are not getting in America.

    With each succeeding cabinet appointment…

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Damn, Handy. Could you spin any faster?

    I went out of my way in this article to focus primarily on those issues where Holder was not beholden to anyone else on the issues in question, where he was either the one setting the policy or was out of the justice department and working as a judge. None of this stuff can get blamed on anyone else. Notice that I didn’t try to connect Holder directly to the Mt. Carmel Massacre. That wasn’t his decision the way the Gonzalez seizure was.

    Keep hope alive and all that, but don’t accuse me of partisanship for reporting the facts. Oh, and you might want to read up on what I’ve actually written about the Bush justice department. I haven’t exactly been kind to them either. But I know the memory of the despairing partisan is always selective.

    Dave

  • pablo

    And the sheople say baaaah baaah baaaah baaahrack

  • http://marksaleski.com Mark Saleski

    But I know the memory of the despairing partisan is always selective.

    the politics section of bc should be renamed “The Parade of Extreme Irony”.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I find it fairly ironic that so many people are up in arms about the # of former Clintonians that Obama has named to his administration. He certainly would not look to people from the Bush years (with the possible and perhaps temporary exception of Defense Sec’y Robt Gates.) Clinton’s is the most recent Democratic administration. It was also a reasonably well managed administration. It is natural that Obama would look for as much experience as possible. The test of their mettle should come in the next few months.

    Stephen Colbert noted a few nights ago that the Obama administration is about the only place in the country that’s hiring. Yesterday on “Hardball” it was noted that there are approximately 7000 jobs to be filled in the incoming administration for which they have received an estimated 200,000 applications.

    B

  • Baronius

    Handy, you’re not making sense. Either the AG affects policy or he doesn’t. If he does, then Dave’s right to check out Holder’s record. If he doesn’t, then you’re wrong to blame Ashcroft and Gonzales for the “damage” they’ve done.

    And what damage did they do? It seems to me that they did a heck of a job preventing damage, and they did so with a far more gentle hand than most would have.

    Actually, I could go on all day about the problems in your comments, and since there’s nothing else happening on BC lately, I think I will. You talk about the politicization at Justice. Tell me, what has ever happened at the Bush Justice Department that was anywhere near as political as the commutation of sentences of 16 FALN terrorists?

    These 16 “committed, experienced, sophisticated and hardened terrorists” (to quote FBI head Freeh) had their sentences commuted to time served by Bill Clinton following the recommendation from Eric Holder. Why? They were unrepentant. They’d threatened the judge during their trial. They’d never even applied for clemency. But they were Puerto Rican celebrities, and the president’s wife was running for Senate in New York.

    This same Eric Holder was also involved in the commutation of sentences of two Weather Underground members. Now he wants to sit in the Cabinet with Ayers and Dohrn’s buddy and the ex-Senator from New York? It’s ugly.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Just can’t let that Ayers thing go, huh?

    B

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    You should be ashamed of yourself, Doubting Baronius. Senator Obama won the election and the hearts of Man worldwide. He should now be given absolute latitude in selecting whomever he wishes for his cabinet. We should not question his choices, or concern ourselves with their past. Who was the friendly priest who said, “there is no such thing as a bad boy?”

    Sure, Mr. Holder did some things he probably should not have done, but he is doubtless repentant and has learned his lessons. We must look to the glorious future gleaming before us, reach out and feast upon the miraculous change about to be bestowed upon us, and be grateful to He who will provide it.

    Put all thought of Mr. Ayers et al behind you, Sir, and reach out for the true light.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Baronius

    Dan – Eh. There’s no point in complaining about every last appointment just because I don’t like the President-elect. And let’s face it, I’m just a jerk on the internet, so it doesn’t matter what I think of Daschle, and even if I were the Senate Minority Leader I couldn’t do a thing about any of these nominations.

    I just want to see the best caliber people making bad decisions in an honorable way.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    @ #34:

    Hillary? Is that you???

  • Baronius

    Dread, you’ve called me some nasty things before…

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    There is no doubt that all of you died-in-the-wool
    Bushy-McCainiacs are going to constantly bitch every time Obama draws breath. I suppose that’s how it should be, so knock yourselves out.

    B

  • Clavos

    There is no doubt that all of you died-in-the-wool Bushy-McCainiacs are going to constantly bitch every time Obama draws breath.

    Or, at least, you hope they will.

    Otherwise, you won’t have anything to dislike them for.

    Imagine how frustrated you’d be…

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I think the dislike is mutual.

    I came into Blog Critics, what now, a couple of years ago(?) with my lefty views, but not so much cynicism. I got punched around pretty good early on. I have said more than once Clav, that I respected you and your opinions probably more than any of the others on the “right” side of things here at BC with Baronius perhaps a close second.

    Of late our exchanges have had more of a bitter tone coming, I admit, from my end as well as yours. We, and others here feel passionately about many of the various issues batted around on these cyber pages.

    Yeah, I suppose we don’t like each other very much. I think it has less to do with our opposing views as it does with our tendancy toward sarcasm, condescension and dismissiveness we often level at each other that manifests any ill feelings.

    Actually, it’s probably best that most of us will never meet each other face to face. I suppose we would work at being civil, but such encounters could easily get ugly.

    B

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    From a description of a speech given by Eric Holder in June:

    …he condemned Guantanamo as an “international embarrassment”; charged that “for the last 6 years the position of leader of the Free World has been largely vacant”; complained that “we authorized torture and we let fear take precedence over the rule of law”; and called for an absolute end both to rendition and warrantless eavesdropping.

    He proclaimed that “the next president must move immediately to reclaim America’s standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights.”

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Among the many dismissive and distorting comments Dave made in 2007 about the politically tainted dismissals of US attorneys, the most absurd was when he tried to tie these attorneys [Republicans appointed by Bush] to Acorn:

    “At first I thought this was just another partisan witch hunt from capitol hill, but as details have emerged it turns out there actually IS a scandal here, but it’s not the one promoted in the media…

    ACORN has been buying votes and filing fraudulent registrations all over the country since before the 2000 election. The scale of the fraud they have committed is enormous, but politically partisan prosecutors have been reluctant to investigate them, as was the case here.

    Firing was too good for these US Attorneys. They ought to be investigated for conspiracy in the fraud cases.”

    One assumes that if this were the case, the Bush administration would have used it as ammo, instead of what they did, which was to deny, deny, deny.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Actually, it’s probably best that most of us will never meet each other face to face. I suppose we would work at being civil, but such encounters could easily get ugly.

    I don’t know, B-tone. It’s hard to be sarcastic and nasty when the other person is standing right across from you. I have a feeling most of us would get along pretty well.

    I even noticed this when I ‘tuned in’ to some of the abortive attempts to take the political dialog onto Blog Talk Radio – discussions in which you, Clavos, Dave and other BC luminaries took part. While your differences of opinion were clear, the expressions of a desire to rip one another’s throats out were noticeable by their absence.

    :-)

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    There is no doubt that all of you died-in-the-wool
    Bushy-McCainiacs are going to constantly bitch every time Obama draws breath. I suppose that’s how it should be, so knock yourselves out.

    Not at all, B-Tone. I had great hopes for Obama as someone who could at least shake up the established political order and do something different, no matter how much I might disagree with his ideology.

    But look at him. He’s bought into the worst elements of bipartisanship, is reestablishing the same old democratic establishment and is doing nothing to fulfill any of the promises he made. I don’t care for most of the specific promises – probably oppose most of them – but I did at least want to see CHANGE – you know, trying something different, being creative, thinking outside the box.

    This is why I preferred Obama to Hillary all along. The problem is that people voted for Obama and change and seem to have gotten Hillary and more of the same.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Doc,

    What you say is true. The few shows we all did together were actually almost sickeningly amicable.

    If a bunch of us were to meet at some watering hole, as long as we only lightly skirted around our heartfelt issues, and as long as none of us had too much “water,” I suppose such a get together would be at least nominally friendly, if not downright disgustingly so.

    B

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    I still maintain that most of us (those of us who are reasonable – [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]) basically want the same things regardless of our political allegiances. We just disagree on the best ways to accomplish those goals. Sometimes very intensely.

    Dave

  • pablo

    Gotta love how Nalle calls the kettle black. The very tools of his trade are slander, smear, and denigrate. Pretty funny stuff I tell ya.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    “There are three things you must never discuss with friends, Religion, Politics and the Great Pumpkin”

    Linus Van Pelt

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    Rumsfeld, Chaney? Stop yourself.

    Dan(Miller)

    Where was the scrutiny when Bush and the fiasco brigade were running the nation?

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    “This is why I preferred Obama to Hillary all along. The problem is that people voted for Obama and change and seem to have gotten Hillary and more of the same.”

    I strongly disagree.
    After spending a career in the military, I tend to think of things in military terms.

    I clearly remember a captain we had on the Ranger back in the early 80’s. For much of the time the captain’s tour, the ship did not perform well. It seemed that no matter what we did, it wasn’t good enough. But then we got a new captain – named Tony Davis – and all of a sudden, everything went perfectly. It was incredible…and that was when I first learned how a different guy in charge can make an incredible turnaround using the SAME crew as his predecessor had.

    You’ve seen this before with sports teams that go from worst-to-first, after a simple change in the management.

    In other words, Dave, this is not Clinton Redux. This is a guy who’s assembling a skilled and experienced team – and if much of the team happened to work for the Clintons before, that is of NO consequence. All that really matters is the ability of the one in charge to give them the proper direction and hold them accountable for their actions.

  • Clavos

    The few shows we all did together were actually almost sickeningly amicable.

    They were definitely civil, even more than that.

    Your comment further upthread about the exchanges between you and me of late is also true, and I’m disappointed in both of us as a result. You’re right when you say that we, at least with each other, were more civil, even friendly, in the past.

    I say we can be again.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    As you know, there is a fine, sometimes hard to define line between respective discourse and disrespectful sniping. I’d say we both crossed that line from time to time.

    I suppose we should just “chill” for a time. Maybe listen to some good jazz. Most of what takes place through the Bush/Obama transition will not provide much real meat on which to chew.
    I, for one, intend to cool my fingers and wait and watch. I am anxious to see how things go, say through the first 90 days or so of Obama’s administration to see if he is the kind of leader I believe he will be, or, as Baronius says, “just an empty suit.”

    B

  • Clavos

    I suppose we should just “chill” for a time…Most of what takes place through the Bush/Obama transition will not provide much real meat on which to chew.

    I’ve actually been doing that (to a degree) since the election. You might not have noticed, but my comment volume is down considerably since then, and I’m (mostly) avoiding discussions specific to Obama and his activities, and just observing.

    In any case, the respect you say you have for me IS reciprocal; in large part because of your civility in the past.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    In other words, Dave, this is not Clinton Redux. This is a guy who’s assembling a skilled and experienced team – and if much of the team happened to work for the Clintons before, that is of NO consequence. All that really matters is the ability of the one in charge to give them the proper direction and hold them accountable for their actions.

    I don’t necessarily have a problem with this. I think the Clinton administration was basically pretty solid. But it is NOT what was advertised and voted for by the American people. If they wanted change, they should get change, not just a rehash of the greatest hits of the last two administrations. I suppose that having marginally better leadership at the top is a change, but it’s not the type or degree of change people were expecting.

    dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Zedd, you ask Where was the scrutiny when Bush and the fiasco brigade were running the nation?

    It strikes me that there was quite a lot of scrutiny. However, let’s assume for the sake of argument that there was none or that there was too little. Does that suggest that there should be no scrutiny of President Elect Obama and his associates? That those who perceive potential problems should be silent? That only those who were pleased with his election should be heard? What do you suggest?

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Based on comments and articles I’ve been reading, the American right is now supposed to shut up and go away.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    The “change” that Obama preached about during the campaign didn’t have so much to do with the people he intends to bring into his administration, but rather, with instituting significant change in policy, and, perhaps, ideology.

    People are not pre-programmed automatons. Presumably, Obama had sit downs with each of his cabinet and other choices clearly laying out his agenda and expectations. And, presumably, each of them have assured Obama that they would be willing and able to carry out that agenda, even in the event that it did not necessarily align with their own thinking.

    Through the campaign and the early stages of the transition Obama has, if nothing else, shown himself to be very self possessed, unflappable and on top of what was and is happening.

    I’m sure Obama is aware of his own lack of first hand experience with many of the issues at hand, and it behooves him to surround himself with people who have “been there, done that,” especially as regards the nuts and bolts and pitfalls of traversing the DC landscape.

    If he were to bring in a slew of beltway novices in key positions, it could be a blood bath. It might anyway. Better that under the circumstances Obama should have people advising him who know the machinations of working the DC crowd, and perhaps, people who know where some of the bodies are buried.

    B

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    My comparison would be with the Kennedy administration. Kennedy brought in the ‘best and the brightest’ which generally did not include a lot of career political appointees, but rather people from academia and the business world and outside of the mainstream of establishment government. He didn’t bring on a bunch of FDR and Truman people to run things.

    I had sort of been expecting a similar approach from Obama. That would have been much more the kind of change which I think people were anticipating.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    “There is no doubt that all of you died-in-the-wool Bushy-McCainiacs are going to constantly bitch every time Obama draws breath. I suppose that’s how it should be, so knock yourselves out.”

    You’ll find the opposite is true. We blame ourselves for our losses, and use every one of them as an opportunity for infighting and internal reform. We all went out and bought “YES WE LOST” t-shirts. This is one of the big differences between D’s and R’s. Republicans are generally better human beings.

    Sure, you hear some muttering about Obama’s birth certificate or ACORN, but nearly all of us completely accept the results of the election. We won’t make up stories about chads or Diebolt machines. We won’t complain about the electoral college. All of that undermines confidence in the American system.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, would rather harm the institutions than admit defeat. They convinced half the country that the prior two presidential elections were stolen. Again, I don’t mean all Democrats, but plenty of them.

    Consider the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. Under Nixon, the Republicans in the Senate followed principle over their party’s leader. Nixon stepped down rather than harm the nation further. Under Clinton, the Democrats stood in line behind a president who preferred to drag the country through a national scandal rather than step down. Clinton proved himself to be half the man Nixon was.

    So here we are again. I’ll question Holder’s nomination, but I’ll sit back and watch Obama, Biden, Daschle, and all the others take their oaths of office. And I’ll wish them and the country all the best.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    “This is one of the big differences between D’s and R’s. Republicans are generally better human beings.

    Ah, good to see that you are offering the proverbial olive branch Bar.

    There’s a good deal to take issue with in your comment, but I guess the quote above is at its essence. That you believe Republicans to be “better human beings” than Democrats is revealing. I guess it helps to salve your wounds if you rationalize the Republican losses with the notion that you are inherently better people than the evil Dems. Well, if say, god is on your side, I guess he picked the wrong team. Gives one pause, doesn’t it?

    B

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I, for one, intend to cool my fingers and wait and watch. I am anxious to see how things go, say through the first 90 days or so of Obama’s administration…

    Baritone, for your own sake, don’t relax your watch. Keep a careful eye on the man who still has the rudder of state, and keep a close eye on he who is presumed to assume control of that rudder in a month or so.

    I’m not talking about the nature of the comments you make, I’m talking about your vigilance – no matter what you choose to say here.

    It is during just such times that the most finagling, and most dangerous deceptions can occur – the time that people think they can relax.

  • Baronius

    Bar, that’s as witty and inflammatory as I get. Someone’s got to get the conversation rolling around here.

    I am offering the olive branch. I’ve seen what sore losing looks like over the past 8 years, and I don’t want any part of it. But if wounds heal quicker by not picking at them, so much the better.

  • Baronius

    And I’ve got to include my elder brother Ruvy in this. He and others have accused Bush of planning to steal this election, with no evidence to support that charge. I understand suspicion of those in power, but at some point you’re just inciting paranoia. Ruvy, if the Republicans refuse to yield power, I’ll admit I was wrong. I expect you to apologize to all of us at the beginning of the Obama Administration.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Baronius,

    My suggestions to Baritone do not have anything to do with the Bush administration refusing to yield power. They have to do with what people do when they think they can get away with hell, and this is especially true during transitions. For that, I send you to this article at Global Research.com.

    My accusations of the Bush administration refusing to yield power were not made without some kind of back-up. But, Baronius, you’ll have to go to this article in my blogsite Ruvy’s Roost “Signs of Redemption” to see them. It is my considered opinion that Obama, even though I do not believe he was the natural born citizen the constitution requires, will be inaugurated as president. It is my opinion that the conference of justices to be held 5 December will refuse to hear the cases brought on certiorari to prevent the election and inauguation of Senator Obama. You will see the reason I feel assured of this in that same article at Ruvy’s Roost.

    As for my advice to Baritone, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Well, Ruvy, I understand your concern, but, hey, I’ve got some monster nap time to catch up on. Just call me Rip Van Baritone for the next several weeks. When I wake up, everything will be hunky-dorey.

    B

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Enjoy your nap, Baritone. When you come back, come basck with some funny articles on what lovely customers New Yorkers are when they get in cabs.

    I’m sick of politics.

    Olmert and at least one other aide is getting the book thrown at them. It’s news, real news. I could gve a damn.

    Just a comment for the legal eagle (I forget her name) who took out my allegations that Olmert was a thief from my first article on him way back….

    I told you so.

  • Les Slater

    “Republicans are generally better human beings.”

    I don’t think that is too useful but there is a germ of truth in it.

    To dismiss a large portion of the population as being stupid, or ignorant, for voting for Bush or McCain, is not a human characteristic to be proud of.

    Actually, it is a social characteristic of a vocal, relative minority of those seeing themselves as Democrats. Still nothing to be proud of.

  • Cindy D

    Actually, it’s probably best that most of us will never meet each other face to face. I suppose we would work at being civil, but such encounters could easily get ugly. (B)

    I don’t know, B-tone. It’s hard to be sarcastic and nasty when the other person is standing right across from you. I have a feeling most of us would get along pretty well. (Dr.D)

    I’d probably give Dave a big hug and a smooch (on the cheek of course).

  • Les Slater

    Cindy,

    I made a trip to Houston the beginning of this year. I also had business in Austin. I sent Dave an email suggesting we might meet for lunch or something. It didn’t happen but I’m sure we would have gotten along just fine.

    Les

  • Cindy D

    “Republicans are generally better human beings.”

    I don’t think that is too useful but there is a germ of truth in it.

    I am not sure there is even a germ of truth in it. Republicans are, to me, mostly authoritarians. But then , so are “progressives/liberals”. Although, I personally think Baronius is a “better human being”. Something I wouldn’t normally (via my own bias) allow for both Republicans and fundamentalists. I only wish his fellows lived up to his standard. (And I include Glenn Contrarian here too.)

    I am currently writing my first BC article. It will be on this subject. Although it hardly looks at the right, it will not look favorably on the left.

  • Cindy D

    (And I include Glenn Contrarian here too.): as living up to standards I would have not thought a fundamentalist capable of.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Les,

    “I don’t think that is too useful but there is a germ of truth in it.

    To dismiss a large portion of the population as being stupid, or ignorant, for voting for Bush or McCain, is not a human characteristic to be proud of.”

    By the above you mean to indicate that no one had any disparaging words to say concerning Obama and his backers? Hmmm. Seems like I could, if so inclined, sift through articles and comments right here on BC that would give the lie to that notion.

    If I’m not mistaken, we Obamaites were often characterized as being mindless idolizers. Not very flattering, no?

    At least Bush and his devotees had earned the derision they received over the past 8 years.
    B

  • Baronius

    Thanks, Cindy. And I’m sure that the worst of the Democrats will calm down once they get back in power. It just seems like they need it so badly!

  • Zedd

    Dan(Miller)

    I was asking where the scrutiny was from you in particular. I think we should all keep an eye on any President. I do think however that it is ridiculous for those who voted for Bush; who watched the fiasco role out and kept waving flags, then went to the polls and voted him in AGAIN, to pretend to be so responsible of citizens that they can’t wait for the new guy to get into office before offering strong scrutiny. It was an easy call Dan, yet nothing. No digging deep or immense deductive challenges, Bush and his crew were reckless and ill equipped. It was all obvious. The war was a sham and millions of Americans called it. The recklessness of this administration has caused a domino affect of unknown proportion. I heard yesterday that what we are faced with is a fanancial disaster to the magnitude of Katrina hitting every city all over the nation.

    Where is the evaluation of HOW THE HECK WE GOT HERE. It’s sorta important. You cant consider yourself qualified to judge a good leader if you chose the worst one in our history, twice.

  • Zedd

    Sure, you hear some muttering about Obama’s birth certificate or ACORN, but nearly all of us completely accept the results of the election. We won’t make up stories about chads or Diebolt machines. We won’t complain about the electoral college. All of that undermines confidence in the American system.

    where to begin….

    This is such bad logic it drives one to conclude that to try and address the fallacies of this conclusion is hopeless. The author is simply too far gone to be brought back to a state of reasonability. Sigh…. It’s just bad.

  • Les Slater

    Btone,

    “At least Bush and his devotees had earned the derision they received over the past 8 years.”

    No more than Democrats in power. If you’re talking about policy, it’s been quite bipartisan.

    “[do] you mean to indicate that no one had any disparaging words to say concerning Obama and his backers?”

    No, but you did notice that when the McCain campaign, in desperation, raised those howls most vociferously, it became even more unpopular and isolated.

    “…and comments right here on BC that would give the lie to that notion.”

    Judging by the comments in the Politics section of BC Magazine one would have to conclude that the voice of communists is quite significant. It ain’t true. BC is not very representative of the population as a whole.

    Les

  • Clavos

    OK, everybody who voted for Bush raise your right hand.

    Sergeant-at-Arms, please get all their names — KEEP YOUR HANDS UP, PEOPLE!!

    OK, now all those of you who voted for him twice, stand up.

    Sergeant-at-Arms, names, please. YOU–IN THE BACK! YEAH, YOU! STAND BACK UP–ALL OF YOU!

    OK, now everybody stays standing and/or hand raised until your name is recorded.

    ************

    OK, PEOPLE, LISTEN UP!

    All of you who voted for Bush twice: you no longer have the right to judge the performance of Presidents, got that?

    As for the rest of you, who only voted for him the first time, WATCH YOUR STEP! One more fuckup like that, and you’ll lose your judging privileges, too.

    All of you will get a notice next week, advising you as to whether or not you’ll be allowed to continue voting.

    That is all. DISMISSED!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Sergeant-at-Arms, please get all their names

    No – get their watches…

  • Zedd

    Clavos,

    Funny….

    The HUGE point however is, figure out what went wrong. If you are a really really poor judge of effective leadership, evaluate what you are missing. That’s all.

    It’s like the guy with the worst yard in the neighborhood giving advise to the new guy on the block about yard care.

    It’s embarrassing.

  • Zedd

    Sergeant-at-Arms, please get all their names

    No – get their watches…

    Then smack them. They should have had a v8

  • Clavos

    The HUGE point however is, figure out what went wrong. If you are a really really poor judge of effective leadership, evaluate what you are missing. That’s all.

    No.

    The point is that, in this country, everyone has a right to not only have, but to express, their opinions.

    No exceptions.

  • Brunelleschi

    Everyone needs to chill.

    Obama isn’t even president yet. He is obviously a very intelligent and clever guy and ready to lead with authority.

    The “change” he campaigned on has already happened, in people’s minds and in what his election represents-another nail in the coffin of some of America’s bad history of prejudice. That is awesome already. It’s symbolic in some ways, and very real and significant in some positive ways, but that’s OK right now.

    He’s energized a lot of voters who have given up on politics, given the entire world a reason to be more optimistic about America, and obviously won’t be the bungling fool Bush was.

    Obama is clever to keep his potential rivals happy and busy to keep them from plotting against him.

    He is clever enough to fill his staff with experienced and smart people, even if he disagrees with them. That takes wisdom and balls. He’s putting very intelligent people in to handle the economic mess to keep nervous Wall Streeters calm, and keeping hawks around to go slow on reversing Bush’s wars (for better or worse).

    People who didn’t vote for him are starting to warm up to him. People who wanted a revolutionary aren’t taking to the streets in protest over his centrism-at least not yet. People who were scared of a revolutionary or worse will be proven wrong.

    He’s got a huge economic mess to try and lead us out of. The last thing he needs is a lot of other distractions.

    We know where his soul is, more on the left, but he’s not going to shove it down America’s throat when we have more pressing business to take care of.

    We have every reason to be optimistic that we are about to see a great leader in action. We won’t always agree, but he will earn respect from a wide range of people and do a good job.

    America’s political machinery is broken and he can’t fix it by wishing. We have just two parties that only fuss over how much money to spend and who to spend it on. We have no real left and no real right and should not expect that to change.

    I don’t get all these people that want him to fail. We got the best choice for the situation we are in and can’t expect everything at once!

    Obama will be part Clinton, part FDR part MLK, and the left’s answer to that cowboy nitwit Ronald Reagan. That’s a heck of an improvement.

  • Les Slater

    Clav,

    I see Zedd’s point as not to deny any the right to express but to gently encourage some corrective measure if an opinion or judgment deviates too far from objective reality.

    Les

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Cindy: I’d probably give Dave a big hug and a smooch (on the cheek of course).

    Well, that would likely embarrass me into silence…

    Lse: I made a trip to Houston the beginning of this year. I also had business in Austin. I sent Dave an email suggesting we might meet for lunch or something. It didn’t happen but I’m sure we would have gotten along just fine.

    I have to sit down with people way less perceptive and just as politically pink as Les or most anyone on BC and do business or socialize on a regular basis and somehow I survive.

    We ought to do more in person BC get-togethers, though. I wish I had more of a grasp on the geographic dispersal of BC participants. I have the impression a lot are in the DC area, where I go several times a year. And it is the heart of the political universe. Maybe that’s the place to meet.

    Cindy: Republicans are, to me, mostly authoritarians.

    There you demonstrate the danger of oversimplifying. There’s a large element within the Republican Party which is outspokenly anti-authoritarian, regardless of the source or political allegiance of the authority. The Democratic party doesn’t really have any organized element which is as hostile to government as some Republicans are, and if they did the party wouldn’t put up with them the way the GOP puts up with us.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    I disagree, Les.

    Zedd is very much of an authoritarian; it’s obvious in many of her past posts.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The point is that, in this country, everyone has a right to not only have, but to express, their opinions.

    No exceptions.

    What, even JOM?

    ;-)

  • Les Slater

    Clav,

    Whatever you may perceive her to be, correctly or not, her point, in my opinion, was valid.

    There is rarely anyone that posts on BC that I do not find some agreement with.

    Les

  • Clavos

    Well, maybe not him, Doc. :>) JOKE! IT’S A JOKE, PEOPLE!

    Les,

    In her original post she said that anybody who voted for Bush twice could not consider themselves qualified to judge Obama.

    You cant [sic] consider yourself qualified to judge a good leader if you chose the worst one in our history, twice.

    That’s just crap. I, or Dan(Miller) can consider myself (himself) anything I (or he) want(s) to.

    It’s Zedd’s typical arrogance.

  • Les Slater

    “In her original post she said that anybody who voted for Bush twice could not consider themselves qualified to judge Obama.”

    That’s an opinion. I would not take it too literally. She did not propose or threaten any mechanism to enforce it. Your admonishion (reply 80) was as if she said that they had no right, in a legal sense, to an opinion, a judgment, or to express them.

    Your quote of her in your 80 ended with: ‘…evaluate what you are missing. That’s all.’

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Today, in response to those complaining about his appointments being heavy on Clintonians, Obama said that what is important is the “vision.” It is Obama that has the vision. It will be his appointees’ job to implement it. This pretty much mirrors what I wrote in #56 above.

    It’s gratifying to know that our President-Elect thinks just as I do. Now I know he’s a genius!{;~)

    B

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    BTW – HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL YOU BASTA… er, I mean, TO ALL YOU GREAT PEOPLE HERE AT BC!

    B

  • Cindy D

    Where is the evaluation of HOW THE HECK WE GOT HERE. It’s sorta important. (Zedd)

    Indeed. That is a good question.

    That’s just crap. I, or Dan(Miller) can consider myself (himself) anything I (or he) want(s) to. (Clav)

    Sure you could. You could consider yourself a coconut cream pie if you wish. That doesn’t mean anyone’s going to serve you for dessert.

    So, where is the introspection? If one makes a mistake wouldn’t you consider it wise to examine the reason for the error?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    So, where is the introspection? If one makes a mistake wouldn’t you consider it wise to examine the reason for the error? Ah, yes. Self criticism, as practiced at the benevolent direction of Chairman Mao, by those whose ideology is out of alignment. A bit messianic, perhaps? No thank you. Not now. There may be a time and place later for that sort of public introspection and recanting, and it will be interesting to see in what context it arises.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, why are we accepting the idea that voting for Bush was ‘the wrong thing’?

    In the two elections where it was possible to vote for Bush, there were two wrong choices offered. In retrospect we know that Bush was a bad choice, but at the time there was no reason to believe he would not be better than the alternative.

    In 2000 the Democrats ran a candidate against Bush who was clearly a pompous fool – not stupid, just incredibly foolish and egotistical. At that time we knew very little about Bush, except that he seemed politically moderate and kind of friendly. Given the choice I think it was reasonable to conclude that Bush was the right choice.

    In 2004, when we knew some bad things about Bush and had an unsatisfactory war going on in Iraq, we had plenty of reasons not to vote for Bush. But the Democrats – IMO assuming that they could not win anyway – nominated the worst possible candidate, an elitist jackass with a closet full of skeletons who most of the voters came to actively despise once the campaign got going. Again, with all his failings exposed to that point, and some positives on his record (a recovering economy and tax cuts), Bush still looked like the lesser of two evils. If that’s the way you vote, it was reasonable to vote for him.

    And the fact remains, that even in hindsight, Bush was not the great, evil bogeyman which a lot of people would like us to believe. He’s not responsible for our current economic problems, the War in Iraq has improved substantially, and he proved an effective moderating force to keep the religious right from making any progress on their issues. Yes, he was wrong and bad on many things, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t still better than the alternative.

    I had the luxury of not voting for Bush because I live in Texas and could vote my conscience instead, but if I lived in a battleground state I would have had a very hard time not voting for him. And the fault lies with the Democrats for not offering a candidate who was more appealing than Bush in 2000 and 2004.

    The problem is that politicians are mostly repulsive scumbags, and the Democratic party’s crop of scumbags are just a little more repulsive than those the GOP offers up most of the time. For whatever reason, they tend to come off as more venal and more self-serving and lacking in whatever vital qualities of leadership it takes to inspire confidence in voters for a national campaign. Obama is an exception. But look at Harry Reid. I can’t imagine what any voters even back in his home state see in him. He’s a soulless sack of mediocrity and mendacity and doesn’t have the skills to disguise it or put up an appealing front of any sort. And he’s typical.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    I’m happy I read this article yesterday rather than pre-election.

    The Wars of John McCain (The Atlantic Monthly, Oct. 2008)

    For McCain, the doctrine of preemption clearly falls outside the realm of mere politics, as does the need to “win,” rather than “end,” wars; the safety of America demands that they be fought, and honor demands that they be won.

    This article, though mildly written, would scare the hell out of me if McCain were still electable.

    McCain is for war and honor and believes we should use war preemptively. He has grown up in a war culture. It seems to me, he pines for the kind of war where there is a big parade afterward.

    Instead of the dud that was Vietnam (which he feels could have been “won”). It is important to him that we should “win” in Iraq. That is exactly what he would have had us doing had he been elected. He meant that 100 years comment.

    McCain is living in a state of unresolved psychological issues regarding his life within his military-minded family. Clear, to me, from his own words. Had he been elected, the whole country would have been enlisted in the task of working through one man’s psychological confusions–through war and more war.

    You folks who voted for Bush twice and then went on to vote for McCain–maybe it’s because you don’t question your judgment that it’s so poor. Zedd is right.

  • Clavos

    So, where is the introspection? If one makes a mistake wouldn’t you consider it wise to examine the reason for the error?

    Beyond remembering not to make the same error again?

    Nope.

    The world moves too fast and there’s too much to do; I’ve never considered navel gazing to be a good use of time.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    There may be a time and place later for that sort of public introspection and recanting, and it will be interesting to see in what context it arises.

    Indeed. Plenty of time for that in the reeducation camps.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    Dan,

    Self criticism, as practiced at the benevolent direction of Chairman Mao, by those whose ideology is out of alignment. A bit messianic, perhaps?

    ????

    I’m not sure what that meant. You think I like Chairman Mao?

    I’m talking about the kind of thinking that prevents one from repeatedly tripping over the same rug.

    The kind that might go something like: “Hey, I voted for Bush twice. I realize he was a wrong choice. Perhaps I should think about the disconnection between my incantations and their results–before I blindly make another bad and dangerous choice.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    As usual Dave makes his characterizations and profers what are his opinions as if they are unassailable fact.

    “In 2000 the Democrats ran a candidate against Bush who was clearly a pompous fool – not stupid, just incredibly foolish and egotistical.”

    Yet, this “pompous fool” garnered more votes than Bush. There are so many reasons, of which we are all aware that Gore should have beem awarded the WH.

    “But the Democrats – IMO assuming that they could not win anyway – nominated the worst possible candidate, an elitist jackass with a closet full of skeletons who most of the voters came to actively despise once the campaign got going.”

    Not true. The vote in 2004, though not as close as 2000, was still close enough that it was not decided until the last one or two states came in – hardly a mandate.

    Dave, you may have set up your comment with the devil’s advocate line, but you still presented it as if all this is a given.

    And to state that Bush is “not responsible for our current economic problems…” is hardly a consensus opinion. To even suggest that a man who has been at the helm of this country for 8 years shares no responsibility for its economic woes is ludicrous.

    B

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    On “where is the introspection?”

    THAT, IMO, is the one great divide between conservatives and liberals. In my experience, conservatives have little use for introspection, for deep examination of oneself’s actions and motives and how one’s actions can adversely affect the others and the world as a whole. More than once I’ve heard conservatives laugh at the liberal tendency to need to ‘feel guilty’ about things. What’s done is done, they say, so why feel guilty about it?

    But I will not worry overmuch. Looking over the vast span of history, it’s fairly obvious that humanity as a whole is progressing from conservatism to liberalism. Such progress was glacial at first in Biblical and medieval times to be sure, but the times continue to change – sometimes quickly, sometimes haltingly, sometimes kicking and screaming in despair or rage – but the times are certainly changing.

    Now we have the internet – and the spread of information and news and education that once took decades can happen in days, in minutes. Social change is now such that events occur regularly now that were unthinkable when I was a child. I still look on mixed-race couples with wonderment, something that is normal and easily accepted now, but I remember what hatred and scorn and spite would have awaited them in the Mississippi Delta of my youth.

    Conservatives – even their name evinces their determination to resist change – cannot stop the incoming tide that will never recede. They can delay it, but it will not be stopped by anything this side of worldwide catastrophe. Time is on our side, not theirs…and some of them know it.

    You feel it too, don’t you? For all the outrage that liberals like thee and me feel at their refusal to adapt to the changing, the growing maturity of the human race, you and I and every liberal can take comfort in the increasingly undeniable fact that conservatism – while it will never die so long as humanity is extant – is becoming irrelevant and far less of a hindrance to the development of the worldwide melting pot of peoples and cultures that is humanity.

  • Clavos

    Not being given to navel gazing, I never thought of it that way; but, of course, liberals are to be the saviors of humanity.

    Thank the Messiah!

  • Clavos

    500000000

  • Cindy D

    Glenn,

    It seems that way if the comments here are any measure.

    But, I have to say, I only ever agreed to be a “bleeding heart liberal”. Of course, that’s just my own personal joke. Which to me means, politically, I am only a liberal as a defense.

    If there has to be a government then it should be aiming to be egalitarian and be concerned with the rights and freedom of every individual not just those with capital.

    I’d rather not have a government. I think being a liberal in the ordinary sense would require one.

  • Cindy D

    Happy Thanksgiving Mark Eden, wherever you are.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy D,

    I’m not sure what that meant. You think I like Chairman Mao? No, I don’t think you like Chairman Mao, and I certainly hope you don’t. However, the problem is a lot bigger than either of us.

    I’m all in favor of reflection and introspection, on all sides. I am not in favor of blind acceptance (or, for that matter, rejection) of everything even a very popular president elect says or does.

    The article to which now more than one hundred comments have been appended deals primarily with the selection of Eric Holder as Attorney General. It questions, and provides factual bases for questioning, whether Mr. Holder was the best or even a reasonably good choice. Beyond Mr. Holder’s role in the pardon of Mark Rich, it points out several other respects in which Mr. Holder’s selection was arguably flawed.

    The thread started out pretty reasonably, with some apparent agreement that Mr. Holder was not a great choice, in keeping with neither the persona created by/for Senator Obama nor his mantra of “change we can believe in,” and some comments offering defenses of Mr. Holder or suggesting that his selection is not important.

    Then the thread seemed to degenerate into a “conservatives should shut up and go away” mode. Baritone commented,

    There is no doubt that all of you died-in-the-wool Bushy-McCainiacs are going to constantly bitch every time Obama draws breath. I suppose that’s how it should be, so knock yourselves out.

    There are quite a few things about Senator Obama in which I don’t rejoice, but his breathing is not among them, and to suggest that anyone who offers criticism is a Bushy-McCainiac is a bit over the top.

    Like it or not, quite a few voters (more than sixty-one million) did not vote for Senator Obama, despite his overwhelming advertising budget and “tilt” of the media toward him. Not all of the people who voted for someone other than Senator Obama can reasonably be characterized as dim-witted or as demented zealots. However, assuming that all are in one of those two categories, who is going to stand watch and make appropriate noises should things not go as even those who voted for him hoped and expected? If those who voted against him are not to be heard, will those who voted for him have the gumption to complain? Perhaps there will be no reason to complain, and I hope there won’t be, even by the “Bushy-McCainiacs;” however, I am far from sanguine about that prospect, and hope that should there be reason for them, voices of displeasure will still be heard over the roar of exultation.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    Who picked Paul Volcker – Clinton and Bush? Or Reagan and Obama?

    I think you must agree that Obama’s not restricting his choices to only liberal colleagues.

    And we liberals – at least most of us – don’t want conservatives to ‘shut up and go away’. We need you. There is a time and place for everyone and everything – and there will be a time that conservatives return to power. The wheel turns, y’know?

    Has Obama surrounded himself with ‘yes-men’? I think you know that he hasn’t…but the same could not be said for Dubya….

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    All the Obama naysayers can raise their objections and voice their concerns as they have a perfect right to do. No one, not Obama, not even Jesus Christ should get a pass from everyone.

    But, at this juncture it all amounts to second guessing. As Glenn points out, Obama’s appointments have thus far been not quite what some would have expected. It is clear that he has not chosen to surround himself with Brownies, and Scooters, who will simply serve as “yes men.” Rather, he has thus far chosen people who represent a rather broad spectrum of experience and ideologies. They are people who will bring differing viewpoints to the table, and who will have the balls to challenge Obama if need be. These people will likely not simply rubber stamp Obama’s every whim.

    While these appointments are coming comparatively swiftly, mainly owing to circumstance, I don’t believe these are knee jerk appointments. Given Obama’s apparent skill at organization and forethought, it is likely that most of the people who have been considered and/or chosen for various posts and duties have been thoroughly vetted, at least in terms of their own experience and ideology. Obama’s not pulling these names out of his ass.

    Dave has made a number of assumptions regarding how Obama is going to see to it that there will be a national gun melting and all of our freedoms will be thrown in the trash along with the constitution.

    It’s still nearly 2 months until Obama even takes the oath of office. It might be useful for all of us to see what he actually does once he assumes the mantle of president. Until then, it’s all meaningless speculation.

    Or should we all chew on William Ayers a bit more?

    B

  • Les Slater

    “It’s still nearly 2 months until Obama even takes the oath of office.”

    The Bush’s presidency has been reduced to a formality. The Obama team already has effective veto power, and thus control, over all important policy decisions.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Oh, I don’t know. There still seems to be a plethora of conflicting decisions coming from Henry Paulson which I doubt the Obama people would lay claim to.

    And Bush is busily signing all of his executive orders over which Obama has no control.

    B

  • Les Slater

    “There still seems to be a plethora of conflicting decisions coming from Henry Paulson which I doubt the Obama people would lay claim to.”

    To the extent that the economic crisis is not solved by Jan 20, which of course it won’t, there will continue to be conflicting decisions going forward. There is no hard separation between Bush and Obama and their respective teams on what to do next. All agree that a stimulus is needed. There just needs to be time to work out the details and sell it to congress.

    Obama will get very little political mileage by denouncing Bush team decisions occurring after Nov 4.

    What Obama is clearly doing, stepping up to the plate before the inauguration, is expected of him in the current crisis. Bush and Obama are cooperating to the very best of their abilities.

  • Cindy D

    RE #104,

    Dan,

    I, myself, am a lot less pleased than punch might be. It reminds me of John Galbraith. So, I’ll quote him again.

    “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.”

  • Cindy D

    And Bush is busily signing all of his executive orders over which Obama has no control.

    I wonder if he’ll try to pardon himself.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    B-tone, you’re assigning magical powers to Bush’s signing statements which doesn’t exist. Obama can reverse them easily with an executive order or a few relevant signing statements of his own.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    No, Dave, you are wrong. Given the #s and complexities of the literally thousands of pages involved, it could take months, perhaps years to change them. Given the breadth and scope of the issues that Obama will face when he takes office, it’s doubtful that his administration will devote a great deal of time going through that mess.

    B

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Signing orders have no constitutional weight at all. Obama could issue a single executive order reversing all of the signing orders, or establishing some sort of oversight committee to go through them. Or he could just invite anyone who had a problem with one of them to contact him or his staff about it. Most of them are harmless or even necessary from what I’ve seen, so he doesn’t need to go after them wholesale.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    “Given the breadth and scope of the issues that Obama will face when he takes office, it’s doubtful that his administration will devote a great deal of time going through that mess.”

    Baritone, this is the thing you don’t seem to realize: the President has staff. When he works on, say, immigration, the EPA doesn’t clear their desks and study immigration. He’s got two million workers beneath him, and if even half of them are doing something, that’s a million projects.

    But you’re right that Bush isn’t a lame duck. His economic team has done more (damage) in the last 7 months than in the prior 7 years.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Not that reliving old elections is the best use of anyone’s time, but Dave’s weird interpretation of 2004 deserves a comment.

    He says the Dems, assuming they would lose anyway, deliberately picked the worst possible candidate. This not only doesn’t make much sense, it also is not true.

    At the time, many Dems, myself included, were looking for an alternative to Howard Dean, who was presumed by many to be nearly unstoppable. I think Dean was and is very cool, but basically unelectable.

    Kerry, with his Vietnam veteran story and his intelligence, seemed like a more ‘electable’ choice; John Edwards was a third alternative, and was my own choice at the time.

    Whatever one’s opinion about the validity of this reasoning now, it was certainly what was going on with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and others of us nationwide.

    Kerry turned out to be a dud of a candidate, in the league of Mondale and Dukakis, although he got a lot more votes. But few of us foresaw that in the primary/nominating process. [Those three losers were and are good men all, just crummy presidential candidates.]

    Many of Dave’s pronouncements about Democrats are just as odd and unsupported by facts as this instance.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Handy, I was just trying to look at the upside – even putting a positive spin on it for the Democrats. The alternative is that Kerry really was the best candidate they had to offer, and that’s a tragic commentary on the party.

    Dave

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Actually, you’re right – it was a sad commentary on the Dems that Kerry was the best we had to offer…so bad that even though he was a decorated combat vet, a deserter beat him.

    This time, the converse was true. The Republicans had a bona fide war hero (though I don’t think he really was a ‘hero’), but he was so bad (even not counting the Bush administration that tilted the game against him) that he lost against a guy with a African/Arabic name…whereas you gotta admit that either of our two major candidates would have won. Personally, outside the Democratic party I would have voted for Bob Barr – at least he had guts to speak his mind and savvy to use the internet to his advantage.

  • Baronius

    I think it’s true that the Dems usuallly go for the Next Big Thing, and the Republicans treat their nomination like a Lifetime Achievement Award. In 2004, the Democrats bailed out on Dean at the last minute and ended up choosing Kerry. This year, both parties definitely followed their instincts.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Glenn, in the past you’ve occasionally demonstrated the ability to think for yourself. Surely you can do better than repeating the silly talking point shit like ‘Bush is a deserter’?

    And I did vote for Bob Barr. You could have too if you had the guts.

    Dave

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Among other things, during my military career I also served as Chief Master-at-Arms (the shipboard ‘chief of police’, as it were) and as Assistant Legal Officer…which means I have somewhat of a clue when it comes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    So when I see that a guy didn’t show up for muster and then show up within the next thirty days, that makes him a deserter in violation of UCMJ Article 85.

    Dave, perhaps YOU should research the matter objectively and reflect upon the nepotism that is (and has always been) endemic in military service. Sufficient evidence is referenced on the Wikipedia article, but for your benefit I’ll leave you with a couple quotes:

    “Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for President Ronald Reagan, has reviewed the payroll records for Bush’s last two years of service, and concluded that they indicate that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result.”

    “Throughout [the period of May 24-September 5 1972], Bush remained obligated to train with his Texas unit, or perform substitute training each month. Bush’s records show that he is credited with no training during these months.[20] Colonel Bricken is on record as stating that Bush made no effort to participate as a Guardsman with the 9921st.”

  • Clavos

    So when I see that a guy didn’t show up for muster and then show up within the next thirty days, that makes him a deserter in violation of UCMJ Article 85.

    Not until convicted. Until then, Article 85 just says he may be tried for the offense.

    Bush was never even tried (and the reasons for this are immaterial to his guilt or lack thereof), let alone convicted.

    Dan(Miller) was actually a JAG lawyer. I’d be interested in seeing his input on the issue.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    I would have voted for Barr “if I had the guts”????

    Fortunately, I’ve done enough that I realize such insults say less about the target of the insult than about the one who said it. I would caution you to be more circumspect about your words – after all, can you find even once that I’ve personally insulted any (non-political or otherwise -famous) people on this forum or any other? I really don’t think you can.

    Dave, to question one’s beliefs – whether political, religious, familial, or cultural – to the cold, hard light of reality, of provable fact, requires intestinal fortitude.

    To try to goad me into ignoring what I see just to meet a certain level of testosterone-laced repartee…simply won’t work. If you want me to change my mind, give me provable facts – for argument without provable facts…is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Just because one isn’t tried and convicted of a crime doesn’t mean he never committed that crime. Many times I’ve seen sailors – officer and enlisted – do things that were worthy of a court-martial, but the matters were swept under the rug instead. I’m sure you know how rich, powerful, and influential the Bush clan has been for generations – and if you don’t think the military tread lightly when it came to the young LT Bush in the Reserve, just put yourself in the place of the colonel who knows that the fitness report he’s writing on a particular junior officer can mean the end of his own career and cost him his retirement pay and benefits.

    With the evidence available, the only possiblity that I see that could absolve Bush is if in the Reserve one is not automatically declared AWOL if they don’t muster at the required place and time. I would certainly like to hear Dan’s take on it, because I won’t pretend to know better than he does. If he can show that Bush was not a deserter (in reality – not on simply whether he was charged or not), then I’ll happily admit my error in public and apologize to all for my ignorance…because that is what I do whenever I’m proved wrong.

    I don’t see Dan’s e-mail handy on the URL link. Perhaps you can encourage him to take a look at this issue?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Glen, re comment #121 —

    when I see that a guy didn’t show up for muster and then show up within the next thirty days, that makes him a deserter in violation of UCMJ Article 85.(emphasis added)

    Not quite. Article 86 deals with AWOL, Article 85 (as you correctly note) deals with desertion. However, being away for more than thirty days does not a deserter make.

    The offense of Desertion, under Article 85, carries a much greater punishment, than the offense of AWOL, under Article 86. Many people believe that if one is absent without authority for greater than 30 days, the offense changes from AWOL to Desertion, but that’s not true.

    The primary difference between the two offenses is “intent to remain away permanently.” If one intends to return to “military control,” one is guilty of “AWOL,” under Article 86, not Desertion, under Article 85, even if they were away for ten years. The confusion derives from the fact that, if a member is absent without authority for longer than 30 days, the government (court-martial) is allowed to assume there was no intent to return. Therefore, the burden of proof that the accused intended someday to return to “military control” lies with the defense.

    A person who is absent for just a day or two, then apprehended, could still be charged with the offense of Desertion, but the prosecution would have to show evidence that the accused intended to remain away permanently.(emphasis added)

    The test as to whether Article 85 or Article 86 applies is thus in the key phrase, “to remain away permanently,” and the tipping point is at “more than thirty days.”

    That’s my recollection as well, based on the four years I spent in the Army JAG corps a long time ago (1967-1970), lots of the time in Korea and lots of it prosecuting and defending courts martial, and during the last year, being the judge at some three hundred special courts martial. There were not many desertions, but there were quite a few AWOLs. Had President Bush been tried for desertion, he would almost certainly have been found not guilty. AWOL would probably have been dealt with administratively, rather than by court martial.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    I was busy writing comment 125 and did not read the several comments preceding it until after I had posted it. So, I left out an apparent bone of contention.

    The military has a presumption of innocence, and one does not officially become a deserter or murderer or whatever until convicted. Off topic, but I feel compelled to say it having been a small cog in the military justice system, I feel rather strongly that the military justice system (once things proceed to the special or general court martial stage) is very fair and better than many civilian jurisdictions.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    Ah…I forgot about ‘intent’. My mistake. I apologize to all for my error…and thank you for correcting me, Dan. I will no longer call Bush a deserter.

    In that case, in your opinion should Bush have been considered AWOL for the periods that he should have been drilling? Just for my own understanding.

    Also, I agree with you that court-martials are very fair and better than many civilian jurisdictions…but the non-judicial punishment process leaves much to be desired, IMO.

    I won’t reply right away – gotta go.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Clav and Dan did an excellent job of saying everything I should have if I’d been around earlier and saying it with greater authority.

    I’ll just chime in that I know of several examples of individuals who went AWOL for extended periods of time for various reasons and were dealt with administratively and not with a court martial because a. they came back voluntarily and b. their commanding officers thought they had a reasonable excuse. They avoided a trial were punished within their unit and eventually were honorably discharged.

    It is also a good idea to remember that Bush was in the national guard, not the regular military, and that conditions in the units he was in were extremely lax, because they were units full of rich and politically connected kids avoiding the draft and playing soldier on the weekends. In that sort of unit missing duty was commonplace and leave policy was very liberal. You’d have to do a lot worse than not reporting for duty for a couple of months to get into trouble.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Glen, here are the elements of the part of Article 86 which seems pertinent:

    (1) Failure to go to appointed place of duty.

    (a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;

    (b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and

    (c) That the accused, without authority, failed to go to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.

    There are other flavors of AWOL, the elements of which can be found at the link.

    I don’t know enough of the facts to suggest whether then Lt. Bush should have been found guilty of AWOL if tried by court martial. Did he receive orders from competent authority directing him to report to a specific place at a specific time? Were those orders countermanded by competent authority? Did he understand the orders? Did he disobey them? A whole lot depends on the facts and the admissibility of evidence concerning them.

    Once again, off topic, one of the most important functions of a military judge is to inquire into facts surrounding a plea of guilty before accepting it. I still remember inquiring into the provenance of a guilty plea offered by a young man to the offense of willfully disobeying the lawful order of a superior noncommissioned officer. The order was to get out of bed and go to work. When I questioned the accused, it turned out that he had a broken leg in a cast and had been ordered by the military physician in charge of his treatment to remain in bed. I obviously rejected the guilty plea, the convening authority dropped the charge, and I gave the young man’s attorney — a member of the bar but not a JAG officer — a short lecture on his duties as defense counsel.

    I absolutely agree that (at least forty years ago) non judicial punishment (UCMJ Article 15) would not have won any prize for fairness. The same, to a lesser extent, was true of summary courts martial. The UCMJ was amended sometime back in 1968, I think, to give the accused in a special court martial substantially the same rights accorded the accused in a general court martial. At about the same time, a few generals were relieved of their commands for having attempted to exercise command influence over the outcome of courts martial. That seemed to have worked.

    It’s a very good system, and generally proceeds quite fairly. Not only that, but people called me “Your Honor” and laughed at my jokes; a heady experience from which I may or may not, over the next forty years, recover.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    As you can see above, I’m having a heaping helping of fricasseed crow served up to me piping hot by Dan. Fortunately, I learned a long time ago that Tabasco makes almost anything taste better.

    mmmm…yuck! Ptooie!

    Just found out Tabasco doesn’t do jack for crow’s feet. But doggone it, I’ll finish the whole blasted thing ’cause I deserve it for opening my big fat mouth when I shouldn’t oughta done it.

    I do say it’s good for the soul to be humbled every now and then. Helps one to keep things in perspective. I’m not afraid of being wrong, only of being unwilling to admit it when someone shows me I’m wrong.

    And to Dan – again, my sincere thanks for the correction.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    You could always lick the Tabasco off the crows feet and just throw them away. And if you do put it on your crows feet be careful – that’s awfully close to your eyes.

    Dave

  • pablo

    Obama the spook, and I am not talking about the color of his skin.

    Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released

    Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released

    Soetoro adoption records — Not released

    Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released

    Punahou School records — Not released

    Selective Service Registration — Released – Proven Counterfeit

    Occidental College records — Not released

    Passport (Pakistan) — Not released

    Columbia College records — Not released

    Columbia thesis — Not released

    Harvard College records — Not released

    Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, Not Signed)

    Baptism certificate — None

    Medical records — Not released

    Illinois State Senate records — None (Locked up to prohibit public view)

    Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost (All other Illinois state senators’ records are intact)

    Such a smile, so charasmatic, yet he is a complete mystery except to for the spooks that created him, open government my ass, its all hidden.

    You liberals are about to be very very surprised very soon, as the wolf is easy to see, it is the wolf in sheep’s clothing that you need to be worried about, and your just too plain eager to swallow, hook, line, and sinker. Have fun!

    From Webster Tarpley’s book ‘Barrack H. Obama – The Unauthorized Biography’, who incidentally in my opinion also wrote by far the best book on the Bush dynasty ever written.

    Obama is a spook. I don’t mean that in the racist sense of the word.

    Obama’s mother was a CIA officer.

    Obama was one of 8 students selected to study sovietology in Columbia’s IR program under Brzezinski, one of the CIA’s top- ranking officers.

    Obama went to work for a CIA front, Business International Corporation (one of whose specialties was recruiting leaders of domestic left-wing organizations as CIA assets).

    Obama ran for state office and his opponent quit the race before the election.

    Obama ran for US Senate, and his opponent quit the race before the election.

    Obama ran for Pres., and his foreign policy chief was, who else, one of the CIA’s top officers, Brzezinski.

    I use the same simple technique that the security forces use to identify intelligence agents and prevent infiltration: I do a background check.

    I’m not saying Obama is good or bad. I’m just pointing out that he is a spook.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    An interesting theory, Pablo. But for Obama to have been useful as a CIA asset wouldn’t he have needed to pursue a career where he travelled overseas or at least had contact with people from outside the US who might be of interest to the CIA? His job history seems poorly suited to that kind of role – though of course the CIA does develop potential assets and then doesn’t always use them.

    Dave

%d bloggers like this: