The Democrats told me that if I voted for McCain, I was voting for Presidential War Powers and secret detention

The Democrat’s Candidate, Senator Obama, had of course promised to close the secret detention centers and, as regards Presidential war powers, had stated:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve
stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

And I did (well, voted for Palin anyhow and the bozo who headed that ticket), and –Wonder of Wonders– They Were Right!

Taking the war powers issue first:

DOJ’s bogus case for war

By:
Conn Carroll
The Washington Examiner Online

The Obama Justice Department produced a 14-page document
Thursday  justifying President Obama’s war in Libya. The document
claims: “The President had the constitutional authority to direct the
use of military force in Libya because he could reasonably determine
that such use of force was in the national interest.”


The Justice memo fully embraces the President Bush administration view of Executive Power and directly contradicts then-Senator Obama’s 2007 statement
that: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” On March
27th, Obama’s Defense Secretary
admitted
that Libya did not pose an actual or imminent threat to the United
States and “was not a vital national interest to the United States.”

While I agree, and always have, with the Bush Administration’s views of the President’s war powers, Senator and Candidate Obama clearly did not.  More importantly, President Obama has not explained to his employers (the People of the United States of America) why the war in Libya is in our vital national interests nor what factors led him to this road to Damascus change of heart.

Nor, when it comes down to the actual policy question, do I have any particular objections to the ongoing practice of secret detention and interrogation for terrorists and other illegal combatants:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — “Black sites,” the secret network of jails
that grew up after the Sept. 11 attacks, are gone. But suspected
terrorists are still being held under hazy circumstances with uncertain
rights in secret, military-run jails across Afghanistan, where they can
be interrogated for weeks without charge, according to U.S. officials
who revealed details of the top-secret network to The Associated Press.

The
Pentagon has previously denied operating secret jails in Afghanistan,
although human rights groups and former detainees have described the
facilities. U.S. military and other government officials confirmed that
the detention centers exist but described them as temporary holding pens
whose primary purpose is to gather intelligence.

The Pentagon
also has said that detainees only stay in temporary detention sites for
14 days, unless they are extended under extraordinary circumstances. But
U.S. officials told the AP that detainees can be held at the temporary
jails for up to nine weeks, depending on the value of information they
produce. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the
program is classified.

What I want to know is why these changes in policy came about.  I want an explanation from our employee as to why he has altered his position so radically.  I also wonder why the rubes progressives who helped elect him are not demanding these answers of him.

Hat Tip to The Blogfather

Shortlink:

Posted by on April 8, 2011.
Filed under Constitutional Issues, Foreign Affairs, Hypocrisy, War On Terror.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    The explanation?

    Because HE is The Won. HE is The Obamassiah. HE knows all. HE views from above. HE knows no fault. HE commits no error.

    There is no issue that HE cannot straddle.

    HE is a hypocrite.

  • LiberalNitemare

    This is different.

    This time its different …. because … because … Your a racist! Thats why!

  • Sky Captain

    * channeling my inner Woop *

    SQUIRREL!!

  • recovered liberal democrat

    Some of us knew he was lying to hide who and what he was during the campaign. He and his worshipers knew that he could get away with it just to get elected.

  • Steve Crickmore

    Rodney, a few progressives or liberals, such as Glenn Greenwald have tried in vain, to hold Obama´s feet to the fire on these national´security´/liberty issues, including drawing up secret lists to target assassinations, (great) on Americans too, in the war on terror.

    But, partly as Republicans and blue dog Deomocrats share his strong arm, Executive views, Obama has been able to make many U turns, always with the accompanying tententious cynical explanations. And they called Reagan “the teflon president” or Nixon “tricky Dick”.

    Thus, when you argue that wars need Congressional approval, you’re standing up for the Constitution; when you start a war without Cogressional approval you´re a humantiarian…..

  • Steve Crickmore

    Rodney, a few progressives or liberals, such as Glenn Greenwald have tried in vain, to hold Obama´s feet to the fire on these national´security´/liberty issues, including drawing up secret lists to target assassinations, (great) on Americans too, in the war on terror.

    But, partly as Republicans and blue dog Deomocrats share his strong arm, Executive views, Obama has been able to make many U turns, always with the accompanying tententious cynical explanations. And they called Reagan “the teflon president” or Nixon “tricky Dick”.

    Thus, when you argue that wars need Congressional approval, you’re standing up for the Constitution; when you start a war without Cogressional approval you´re a humantiarian…..

  • Rodney Graves

    Steve,

    The issue is not the current (correct) position on these matters. The issue is that our employee has made radical changes in his stated policies without explaining why he has done so.

    That so few on the left have actually challenged Obama over these changes is a very strong indicator that prior objections to these policies under the Bush Administration were far more partisan than ideological.

  • docjim505

    (computer generated female voice):

    Obama is awesome. Bush is just a stupid frat boy.

    I think that about sums it up from the liberal side, don’t you?

  • GarandFan

    Steve, “a few progressives or liberals”

    Yep. Damned few.

    The rest are lying hypocrites.

  • Rodney Graves

    docjim @ 8 wrote:

    (computer generated female voice):

    Obama is awesome. Bush is just a stupid frat boy.

    I think that about sums it up from the liberal side, don’t you?

    Pretty much.

    GarandFan @ 9 replied (to crampless):

    Steve, “a few progressives or liberals”

    Yep. Damned few.

    The rest are lying hypocrites.

    Or partisans of a particularly ugly sort.

  • hcddbz

    The reason he not explained is because he most likely not really changed his mind. he just doing things for pur poltical calculation. When the Bush Tax cuts got extend he complained about doing it. The 9/11 trails he complained congress would not pay for it. Libya was him being a good Global citizen.

    He is bidding his time, until his sycophant give me a second term then his true inner Stalnist will come out.

    We still do not know who is in the suit?

  • Steve Crickmore

    Rodney, I agree he has given no explanation, because none has been demanded, and he offers nothing. Why has he made these flips? Is it just political calculation, or even something more sinister…blackmail? He does not give much away. I have a feeling he wants to be seen or accepted, a priori, as a sucessful member, a safe pair of hands of the power elite, or white establishment, and he will do almost anything to ingratiate himself. For a time, it was with Pastor Wright and black power in the South Side, but now, what was once called a Uncle Tom syndrome, he has moved on.

    Obama has had a identity crisis all his life. Most of us get over that when we are about thirteen years old?

  • DaveD

    “I have a feeling he wants to be seen or accepted, a priori, as a sucessful member, a safe pair of hands of the power elite, or white establishment, and he will do almost anything to ingratiate himself.”

    You’re kidding, am I correct?

  • Steve Crickmore

    In office, Obama has distanced himself from minority, and liberal issues where avoidable- health care, dadt and the stimulus package were unavoidable, and has surrounded himself with Clintonites, Goldman Sachs officials, old hands at the Pentagon, Gates as Defense Secretary, Petraeus, the list is endless…no radicals, except for Elizabeth Warren and she was thrust upon Obama. He has directed by far the most prosecutions for whistleblowers of any administration. Cheney would fit in comfortably with Obama. Wonder why we haven´t heard a peep out of the latter recently?

  • 914

    Barry will do or say anything to be able to tee off all day long.

  • Les Nessman

    “..no radicals, except for Elizabeth Warren and she was thrust upon Obama.”

    No radicals? Bwahaha! Samantha Power, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, etc etc etc…? What planet are you on?

    See, this is why it is so difficult to imagine working with these Obamaites. They are either delusional or lying.

  • Walter Cronanty

    I half way agree with Crickmore concerning some of Obama’s u-turns. But I disagree on Obama’s motive. The reason he hasn’t tried to forcefully move forward his more radical ideas is not because “…he wants to be seen or accepted, a priori, as a sucessful member, a safe pair of hands of the power elite, or white establishment, and he will do almost anything to ingratiate himself.” No, it’s because he wants to be re-elected.
    Whenever he faces serious blowback on an issue he backs up, regroups, and goes on to something else the MSM is not forced to cover extensively. Thus, we have governing us the most race-based DOJ in modern history because the MSM simply isn’t covering that story and most people don’t have the time to understand what is going on, and it doesn’t directly hit them in the pocketbook.
    We have a radicalized EPA that is Ayn Rand’s worst nightmare come to life because, again, the press is heavily invested in the CAGW theory, it’s a somewhat complicated issue and, my goodness, think of the children, everyone wants clean air and water [the fact that we've done a better job of cleaning up our environment than any other country in the world and that the current efforts will kill more people than Japan's breached nuclear plant while doing almost nothing for the environment is lost on most folks]. Besides, he can do more to further his anti-capitalist agenda with crony-capitalism, regulatory bureaucracies and Executive Orders than he can through direct actions.
    No, Obama wants power, and he can’t keep it if he takes a stand and his actions are clearly understood. “Nuanced” flip-flops + obfuscation + a sycophantic press = re-election in 2012. If you don’t believe me, let’s see if, in 2012, candidate Obama’s words are juxtaposed with President Obama’s actions as much as, and in the same manner as, candidate GHWB’s “read my lips, no new taxes” were juxtaposed with his compromise with the Ds raising taxes, 20 years earlier.

  • Steve Crickmore

    Les, mine was a general sweeping statement which should have been qualified; by no radicals I met major appointments. I suppose Holder as Attorney-General would be considered the most liberal, and I forgot about Samantha Power.

    Cronanthy, I was trying to think outside the box a little. Yes, who can corral the center will determine the next elction like most, but Obama has made so many flip flops almost pathologically, on ethical issues like transparency and security issues like land mines and even increasing executive power privileges, I must agree and rarely do, with the right that his overriding compass is what benfits him.

    On the left, a mea culpa, we took him too seriously that he was indeed, going to try to change Washington, instead he has been the consumate insider and his appointments and actions have reflected his bias for the most part, against change, rather than for it.

  • SCSIwuzzy

    In Steve’s world, W didn’t address the 2008 Repub Convention, and there have never been radicals in the Obama administration.
    Steve’s world only resembles Earth in the way that Bizarro resembles Superman.