« Doubt we can believe in | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

Obama's Rendition Policy and the Pro-Torture Left

Obama expands rendition!From Ed Morrisey:

For the last seven years, the Left has screeched hysterically over the CIA practice of rendition, in which agents turn detainees over to authorities in their home country for interrogation. Never mind that the practice started in the Clinton administration, and never mind that the other options were Guantanamo Bay, release, or two caps in the back of the head; they pilloried Bush over renditions as if he'd thought them up himself. Hollywood even made a movie about how awful the process is, apparently matched in awfulness only by the film's box office.

Barack Obama exploited that outrage when he promised Hope and ChangeTM, and the Left squealed with joy over the Brave New Obama World in national security. Now they'll have to squeal again as Obama has had a sudden revelation as President that renditions are more necessary than ever, if the CIA can't hold these subjects at Gitmo or its own secret sites.

Let me know if any of Obama's supporters start complaining that he is even more evil and blood thirsty than George Bush. If they don't, this exposes their hypocrisy and partisanship and also shows them to be stinking liars that hated George Bush primarily because he had an "R" after his name. Most of us already knew that, but it is nice to have independent incontrovertible evidence to cite.

Ace wants to know when we will see the movie Rendition II.


Moe Lane names a few of the pro-torture Left.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34187.

Comments (67)

Hmmm, let's see how Hope An... (Below threshold)

Hmmm, let's see how Hope And Change!TM seems to be shaping up so far:

  • Bash Bush over Guantanamo -- close Guantanamo, but still keep the same prisoners in the same kind of custody, just somewhere else.
  • Bash Bush over "torture" -- ban "torture," except when we might need to use some highly coercive interrogation techniques in the name of national security.
  • Bash Bush over denying fair and speedy trials to Guantanamo detainees -- order military courts to suspend hearings for Guantanamo detainees.
  • Bash Bush over warrantless surveillance -- quietly petition US appellate court to keep its ruling authorizing warrantless surveillance in place.
  • Bash Bush over rendition and secret CIA prisons -- quietly allow the CIA to continue its rendition policy.

When the Nutroots finally starts figuring this stuff out, they won't be happy. Unless The One can do a heck of a song and dance routine, he may very well lose his extremist left base, and very quickly.

The MoveOn/Code Pink folks ... (Below threshold)
Hermie:

The MoveOn/Code Pink folks will just consider these to be Rush Limbaugh lies, and refuse to comment.

Now that the One is President, any action he takes will be praised by the MSM, or they will not bother to report it.

If they don't report it, it... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

If they don't report it, it didn't happen. People freezing in Kentucky while the The Chosen One parties in an 80 degree White House, eating $100 imported steak? Didn't happen.

See how easy that was?

Michael,"...he may... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Michael,

"...he may very well lose his extremist left base, and very quickly."

That really wouldn't be very surprising.

As i recently wrote on my o... (Below threshold)
Ron:

As i recently wrote on my own blog, the left will come to realize how he's no better. But instead of admittance they'll be stuck in a state of denial with forced smiles and faked happiness. They'll never say that Barack Obama is evil as they did to Bush.

You've got to think of it like this. We may have respected George Bush as a leader but never saw him as infallible. We've never follow him to the end of the earth. We certainly did our share of criticism of him. We saw him as a two-term president.

Barack's supporters are much different though. Being of the "left" mindset most of them will never have a bad thing to say about him. As much as their against censorship they'll be censoring themselves. That includes the media too. They don't want to give us anything that'll be able to be used to criticize Barack. They seem him less as a president and more like a revered leader. It doesn't even matter if the economy collapses into the gutter and a massive terrorist attack(s) happens in this nation. It'll be the fault of Republicans and other right-leaning individuals

Unless The One can do a ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Unless The One can do a heck of a song and dance routine, he may very well lose his extremist left base, and very quickly.

Nah. They'll find some way to excuse it, to justify it, and then accept that he HAS to do it because, damn it, if Bush hadn't started these things then everything would be all kittens and unicorns - but now there's dragons and orcs around The One has to do what's needed to keep us safe!

Obama lied, people died...I... (Below threshold)

Obama lied, people died...I'll never get tired of saying it.
http://www.rightklik.net/

You might want to update an... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

You might want to update and correct your post. The article the whole thing was based on was not correct:

'So in addition to announcing that the administration will obey the Convention Against Torture, the administration will also study not whether to send detainees off to be tortured, but how to ensure that our policies are not intended to result in their torture, and will not result in their torture. This seems to me like a very clear renunciation of the policy of sending people to third countries to be tortured. His executive order also precludes any kind of secret detention of prisoners, and thus "secret abductions and transfers of prisoners"'

. . .

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/02/the-la-times-on-rendition.html

It's refreshing to see so m... (Below threshold)
Palinisevil:

It's refreshing to see so much hatred in one place.

So Dubya does it it's OK, Obama does it it's not OK? So Obama is "allegedly" doing exactly what Dubya did and now you complain but not a peep out of any of you for the last eight years.

Can anyone say hypocrisy?

Obama's only been in the job for less than a month and already you know better than he how the country will be run. Again i'll say to you, your opinions will never be seen as facts, no matter how hard you try to make it that way.

Wow, Palinisevil. The whol... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Wow, Palinisevil. The whole post flew way over your head.

Is that what that whistling... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Is that what that whistling sound was?

Way to go Livesinilap, do y... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Way to go Livesinilap, do you always get everything backward?

So Dubya does it i... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
So Dubya does it it's OK, Obama does it it's not OK? So Obama is "allegedly" doing exactly what Dubya did and now you complain but not a peep out of any of you for the last eight years.

This post is all about applying the standards liberals used to judge Bush. Conservatives didn't create those standards nor did they agree with them, so of course we didn't apply them to Bush. However, if liberals don't now apply their own standards to Obama then that would be hypocrisy. Obama has to live by the standards liberals used to judge Bush. If liberals wanted fair treatment then they should have given it to Bush.

No facts have been put forw... (Below threshold)
Palinisevil:

No facts have been put forward that clearly proves that Obama is all for the Republican brand of torture. No facts have been posted nor will be posted, only opinion pieces.

That fact seems to have missed some completely.

Sorry but when someone says that Dems only hated Dubya because he had an R after his name, all the while posting on a forum that hates Obama because he has a D after his name is hypocrisy and partisan politics gone mad.

Obama's not been in the job a month and you all so venomously hate him it's laughable. No matter what Obama does you will always hate him, he could turn the economy round and make every one of us insanely rich but you'd still try and pull him down simply because he's a Democrat.

And making personal attacks instead of answering the topic only cements what the majority of the country's population thinks of neocons right now. Can anyone say landslide Democrat victory?

Conservatives didn't create... (Below threshold)
Palinisevil:

Conservatives didn't create those standards nor did they agree with them, so of course we didn't apply them to Bush.
*************************************************************************************************
That's just grasping at straws. Conservatives didn't apply those standards because they can't not follow party lines. That's like saying you wouldn't vote R even if they picked someone you didn't like. Of course you would, most neocons would vote for Hitler if it meant the Dems wouldn't win.

The standards have always been there, but your agenda won't allow you to criticize your own side.

Show me irrefutable facts and i'll be very disappointed in Obama. Show me opinions from people who hate Obama no matter what and will make up BS to try and make people believe they're facts, and i will pull them apart with glee.

Palin, you are either nuts ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Palin, you are either nuts or have lived in a cloister the past eight years. It seems your perception and opinions are not based in the reality of circumstances of today or the past eight years. Worship your idol and leave the grown up conversation to us. ww

"..he could turn the econom... (Below threshold)
hermie:

"..he could turn the economy round and make every one of us insanely rich but you'd still try and pull him down simply because he's a Democrat."

He COULD? By adding two trillion dollars of debt for pork-barrel projects and programs that do nothing to create jobs? That's a LOT of misplaced hope and changey there. There were many of us who believed the first bailout plan was a bunch of BS, and were mad at Republicans who decided that voting for it would make the difference in the their re-election bids.

"Show me irrefutable facts and i'll be very disappointed in Obama." It seems you were too enthralled by the 'One' to bother questioning his policies or getting details about his programs before you voted for him. I doubt that any facts that have shown him to be dangerously naïve about foreign policy and hopelessly inept about economics in just these last two weeks time, will ever stop you singing his praises.

Can anyone say BAMBOOZLED!<... (Below threshold)
syn:

Can anyone say BAMBOOZLED!

Yes You Can backward Livesinilap.

"Obama's not been in the jo... (Below threshold)

"Obama's not been in the job a month and you all so venomously hate him it's
laughable."

This gets my vote for dumbest quote of the day. Possibly of the month. I have yet to see anyone on the right say anything that would lead me to believe they "hate" Obama at all, much less "venomously." We are disagreeing with his policies. A few weeks ago that was a very patriotic thing to do. It was to be lauded and commended. Now to disagree with liberal Democrat policies is to "venomously hate" someone. What thin skins Democrats have. Let me hear anyone on the right call Obama a murdering Nazi sending kids into war so he can make a buck for his fat cat oil buddies while destroying the planet and killing black people for eight years and then maybe I'll be able to relate. What George Bush and his supporters have heard for the past eight years makes the current Obama worship so obvious by comparison that it is not even worth debating. Obama has gotten a free ride from the media his entire career and it obviously will continue throughout the remainder of it and the treatment he is receiving from his opponents has been, for the most part, civil and fair. There are wackos on both sides and a few will say unfair nasty things about Obama, but the unfair and often untrue attacks on Bush for the past eight years have come from the most prominent figures in the Democrat party and nothing I have heard from anyone on the right comes close.

That's just graspi... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
That's just grasping at straws. Conservatives didn't apply those standards because they can't not follow party lines. That's like saying you wouldn't vote R even if they picked someone you didn't like. Of course you would, most neocons would vote for Hitler if it meant the Dems wouldn't win.

And that's just BS. I have posted many comments saying waterboarding is not torture and that so called warrantless wireless taps have existed since the invention of the telephone. Just because you are ignorant doesn't make you right.

The standards have always been there, but your agenda won't allow you to criticize your own side.

We are not talking about valid or correct standards we are talking about liberal standards like the Barney Frank standard that says those in the majority are at fault for any debacle that occurs on their watch regardless of the genesis of the problem or what any member of the minority party voted for. Another is the Michele Moore standard that labels any statement the president makes a lie if it turns out to be false regardless of what the president knew when the statement was made. Your time for disagreeing with the Barney Frank or Michele Moore standard is past. If you didn't think they were fair when applied to Busy you should have said so.

Show me irrefutable facts and i'll be very disappointed in Obama.

Sorry, liberals weren't interested in facts when they criticized Bush, so it's hypocritical to require them now

Does anyone else find it ir... (Below threshold)

Does anyone else find it ironic (and hilarious) that someone who chooses to be identified as "Palin is evil" is accusing those on the right of "venomously hating" Obama? That one pretty much takes the cake.

A pattern is emerging with ... (Below threshold)

A pattern is emerging with the new administration: everything Obama says, every lofty claim of the superior morality of his policies, comes with a little unspoken asterisk attached to the end of it. And it's the fine print the asterisk points to that's where all of the important explanations, extensions, and even negations of said policy actually are.

This is another Wizbang-Ash... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

This is another Wizbang-Ashley-Todd thread. The assertion that Obama has okayed the continued use of torture isn't even true:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/02/the-la-times-on-rendition.html

All these posts that are "na na na Obama's doing the same thing as Bush did" are keeping Bush's Legacy of Being on the Wrong Track alive and well.

Does anyone else f... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Does anyone else find it ironic (and hilarious) that someone who chooses to be identified as "Palin is evil" is accusing those on the right of "venomously hating" Obama? That one pretty much takes the cake.

Beyond ironic, it proves two things.

        •  palinisevil is a hypocrite

        •  palinisevil is not too bright

As many Wizbang commentators know, those attributes are common among liberals.

Adrian Browne says the topi... (Below threshold)

Adrian Browne says the topic of this post, that Obama is continuing renditions, is untrue. I got it from the LA Times. Here is the link which is located in the HotAir post I quoted and link in my post:

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story

Sorry to bring this thread ... (Below threshold)

Sorry to bring this thread back on topic, but you should check out this blog post that Instapundit linked yesterday. Apparently Human Rights Watch has done a complete 180 regarding rendition, now that The Soul Fixer is in charge.

Before:

the US Government should ... Repudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic and permanently discontinue the CIA's rendition program

After:

"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."

Jesus turned water into wine, but The One apparently has the power to turn evil into good. Incredible!

Adrian Browne The ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Adrian Browne

The link you provides says the LA Times is correct, that Obama preserves rendition. Their only rebuttal is to then cite a bunch of legal requirements that require the CIA to know what the other country does to interrogate prisoners. Big loophole. If some other country can only use the interrogation techniques that comply with those legal requirements then rendition would serve no purpose. The fact that Obama is keeping rendition shows two things.

        •  Obama knows he can't survive politically if there's another terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it's found that he didn't use all the tools available to stop it.

        •  Obama knows that most liberals are not too bright and he can just say we followed the law; wink wink.

Of course all of this simpl... (Below threshold)

Of course all of this simply illustrates how easy it is to emerge victorious when your enemies are nothing but straw men.

The whole "being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured" meme is simply fiction dreamed up by liberals and power-hungry Democrats in order to discredit George W. Bush.

The Bush Administration's true rendition policy (actually a direct carry-over from the Clinton administration) is that renditions are necessary under specific conditions and may be lawfully carried out by a limited and closely supervised program overseen by the CIA.

That seems to be exactly what Human Rights Watch's "new and improved" rendition policy states. At least it's nice to know that deep down, they agreed with Bush all along. Too bad they couldn't just tell the truth.

Palinisevil - "So Dubya... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Palinisevil - "So Dubya does it it's OK, Obama does it it's not OK?

Where in the post, or comments, does it say that?

Stop stuffing that strawman, its about to burst with straw. (and BS)

"That's like saying you wouldn't vote R even if they picked someone you didn't like. Of course you would, most neocons would vote for Hitler if it meant the Dems wouldn't win.

You mean like the guy with a "D" that was preceded by the name Kerry?

Additionally, for someone that has expended far too much hot air about comments not being fact based I have to ask.... what Kreskin-like power do you possess that allows you the luxury of proclaiming "most neocons would vote for Hitler if it meant the Dems wouldn't win?"

I have an idea for your nex... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

I have an idea for your next Wizbang post, Lorie:

WHY ISN'T OBAMA DEPORTING HIS AUNT?
That's what he promised isn't it? Doesn't his family have to follow our laws?

I like the two in the back ... (Below threshold)
glenn:

I like the two in the back of the head method myself. Paraphrasing an old Royal Navy slogan from pirate days "A terrorist seldom kills innocent civilians having been shot dead."

As the LA Times says "The C... (Below threshold)
jmc:

As the LA Times says "The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba."

So, I think it is safe to say that Obama is only 1/4 as blood thirsty as Bush as he got rid of 3 of the 4 programs.

I am dissapointed Obama hasn't gotten rid of rendetion, however he still is doing much better on human rights than Bush. Hopefully as Malinowski suggested The Obama administration stipulates that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court.

Oh, and If you get to call Obama blood thirsty because liberals called you that. Then Liberals get to call you traiters for questioning the president, as you did them.

jmc - "And Guantanamo B... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jmc - "And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba."

And you know this how?

It's damn sure not from reading the executive order he signed. It only states the commission it requires will look into the possibility of closing gitmo and he will (presumably) follow its recommendations.

"It's damn sure not from re... (Below threshold)
jmc:

"It's damn sure not from reading the executive order he signed. It only states the commission it requires will look into the possibility of closing gitmo and he will (presumably) follow its recommendations."

It's a direct quote from the LA Times article used to prove Obama is leading rendetion in place. Do you question the source? :)

"leaving" not "leading." th... (Below threshold)
jmc:

"leaving" not "leading." that is.

"Do you question the so... (Below threshold)
Marc:

"Do you question the source?"

And you don't?

Again, read the EO.

While the summary says gitmo will be closed it's subject to review by a committee the EO sets-up.

"Do you question the source... (Below threshold)
jmc:

"Do you question the source?"

And you don't?

So you are saying when Lori Byrd uses the L.A. Times, (which says what i said) to prove obama is in fact keeping rendetion alive she is using a source i should question? What a relief, i thought she had posted proof Obama was going to keep using rendetion.


Oh marc, Since Gitmo is not... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Oh marc, Since Gitmo is not getting closed does it make Sean kind of look like an idiot when he calls Obama mister friend to muslims for glosing gitmo?

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/01/27/barack-obama-me-muslim-friend.php


And is Kim being hysterical when she says Obama wants Gitmo detainees to settle in the U.S. I mean this is a whole lot of nothing if he's not actualy doing it right?

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/01/15/brilliant-some-gitmo-detainees-might-settle-in-the-us.php

jmc - "So you are sayin... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jmc - "So you are saying when Lori Byrd uses the L.A. Times, (which says what i said) to prove obama is in fact keeping rendetion alive she is using a source i should question?"

Um, no.

I questioned your use of the following quote:

"And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba."
That fails to appear in the LAT article.

jmc - "And is Kim being... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jmc - "And is Kim being hysterical when she says Obama wants Gitmo detainees to settle in the U.S. I mean this is a whole lot of nothing if he's not actualy doing it right?"

That presumes the recommendation is to close it.

If that's the hypothetical you desire to take where will they be if and when it's closed?

There's only two choices at that point, countries willing to take them, or a fed prison within the States.

The LAT article is not proo... (Below threshold)
Palinisevil:

The LAT article is not proof, there are a lot of words like "may" and "could" littered throughout.

Maybe most missed this part of the LAT article.

"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."

Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. "Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance," Malinowski said.

So Obama may not be giving the go ahead for more torture, his new Rendition policies seem to be at polar opposites to Dubya's. But there are still not true facts, so only time will tell.

That fails to appe... (Below threshold)
jmc:
That fails to appear in the LAT article.


What!!? It is the first paragraph. make sure you looking at lories link in post 25.

That presumes the recommendation is to close it.

Oh, does "And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba"
presume gitmo is to remain open?


If that's the hypothetical you desire to take where will they be if and when it's closed?

Since KimandShawnareoperating under the presumption that obama isclosing gitmo, I willas well.

Obamalama's new phrase is, ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Obamalama's new phrase is, "Nobody's perfect." So grown up. ww

jmc - sorry, some how I mis... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jmc - sorry, some how I missed that para or mis-read it.

However, the EO as written doesn't give definitive evidence gitmo will be closed. It all depends on what the findings of the committee set-up to review gitmo, rendition etc is.

Neither you nor I know what that will be.

Put it this way, if it were set in stone, there would be no need for the committee. As we've already seen with his EO to stop all military tribunals things can easily be set aside by the courts.

So Obama may not b... (Below threshold)
Occam's Beard:
So Obama may not be giving the go ahead for more torture, his new Rendition policies seem to be at polar opposites to Dubya's.

They're exactly the same policies, you moron. Face it - you've been had.

The only difference between Bush's policy and Obama's is the liberal (?) application of some linguistic cologne (some harumphing about "safeguards" by some do-gooder who isn't even in the Administration) to make Obama's policy sound different. Isn't there something in the Constitution about King's X?

Bottom line: Obama will use rendition when, how, and on whom he thinks he needs to, and will ship their ass to wherever he thinks he needs to ship them.

And I, for one, am pleased that Obama has so decided, just as I was when Bush made the same decision.

By the way, we're having a poker game at my house Friday night, and you are definitely invited.

According to Clinton admini... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

" 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"

Maybe I've been too hard on Gore. Anyway, Clinton signed an EO authorizing 'extraordinary renditions' (extraordinary as in outside the judiciary) to deal with terrorists. Bush continued the policy and somehow kept the U.S. from being attacked again for over seven years. Obama is walking a tightrope of maintaining tools that have proved effective in obtaining actionable intelligence, while at the same time appearing to depart from using such tools. If there is an attack on U.S. soil that takes American lives you can bet there will be a full investigation and Obama knows that his political career is over if the American public see him as being soft on terrorists.

Besides, nothing we do can satisfy the European elite who consider sending your kid to their room as torture. Keep America safe and let the European elite coddle their own terrorists.

Marc,<br... (Below threshold)

Marc,


However, the EO as written doesn't give definitive evidence gitmo will be closed. It all depends on what the findings of the committee set-up to review gitmo, rendition etc is.

I think you may be confusing executive orders. The Executive Order on the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility is very explicit.

The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

That timeline in the order is not dependent on the findings of any commission. So, as written, the executive order does definitively say that the facility will be closed within 1 year.

The difference is that Obam... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

The difference is that Obama feels really bad about having to use renditions. They were like freakin' Viagra for Cheney.

Unbelievable people. Here:<... (Below threshold)
Jason Barker:

Unbelievable people. Here:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326

OK? Put the froth back in your mouth on how awful the hypocrisy is on the left. Move on to the next non-issue.

Jason Barker,The a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jason Barker,

The article you linked claims that "the extraordinary renditions program which was introduced by Bush 43", but according to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke, extraordinary renditions were used by Clinton (see quote in post #46). If Scott Horton can't get such readily available information correct there's no reason to believe he got anything else in his story correct. He also dismisses the LAT's unnamed sources as if that hasn't been a common practice in stories critical of Bush for the last eight years. As usual the buffoonery is coming from the left.

Someone seems pos... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Someone seems positively desperate to lump Obama in on the illegal activities.

Someone seems positively... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Someone seems positively desperate to lump Obama in on the illegal activities.

Actually, the left desperately wants the activities to be under George Bush but A-OK for Teh One.

Someone seems posi... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
Someone seems positively desperate to lump Obama in on the illegal activities.

Nope, not really. If he pussies out on this, and there's a terrorist attack, the Democratic Party will be outlawed - and j;ustifiably so.

Seriously all these double ... (Below threshold)
SillyPuddy:

Seriously all these double standards and hypocrisy already shown from the left is down right hilarious, sickening and predictable but hilarious none the less, and we've not even finished week 3 yet.

Actually, the left desperat... (Below threshold)
Palinisevil:

Actually, the left desperately wants the activities to be under George Bush but A-OK for Teh One.
*************************************************************************************************

The U.S. constitution states that, the U.S. president is responsible for all actions carried out by the executive. Therefore, Dubya was responsible for the torture methods used by U.S. authorities. Just as Obama will be if he continues Dubya's plans.

We can all play the blame game till the cows come home, but it all boils down to how well torture sits on your conscience. It doesn't sit well on mine, and hopefully Obama will change these policies so torture is not an option. As Dubya found out, no good trying to hide it because the MSM will find you out.

And what great information did this torture reveal, still no sign of Osama, you know the guy who murdered 2,974 on 9/11. Dubya's greatest failure in my eyes.

See, here's the thing, Pali... (Below threshold)
Tim:

See, here's the thing, Palinisevilisstupid. I don't consider rendition or waterboarding illegal, I don't consider them torture. And apparently Barak Obama doesn't, either. He just said those things in the campaign so idiots like you would lap it up and vote for him. Now that he's back in the real world and has actual responsibilities, he agrees with the tactics we've been using to keep the country safe. My amusement comes mainly from the fact that people who called George W Bush Hitler for allowing these methods see no problem with the Messiah following the same route. And BTW, Obama said in a recent interview that capturing or killing Bin Laden should not be the top priority of the war against terrorists, as long as he is prevented from planning and ordering more attacks. Now where have I heard that before???

The U.S. constitut... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The U.S. constitution states that, the U.S. president is responsible for all actions carried out by the executive. Therefore, Dubya was responsible for the torture methods used by U.S. authorities

Bush is also responsible for keeping the U.S. safe for over 7 years after the 9/11 attacks. Obama will be judged by that standard, not by how the liberal elite defines torture, which includes sending your kid to their room for a timeout.

In fact, many people disagree that the interrogation techniques authorized by Bush were torture. Even the waterboarding the CIA used turned out to be a simulation of real waterboading, producing it's effect by physiological rather than physical means. I wouldn't expect a self-identifying partisan hack like you to agree, however.

And what great information did this torture reveal, still no sign of Osama

Still no attack on U.S. soil and the CIA has stated that information they received was instrumental in capturing many other tourists. When terrorists see other terrorists captured their own plans shift from offense to defense. That's what disruption means, that's what has kept the U.S. safe for over 7 years. Now we'll see how Obama does.

Should be ...capturing many... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Should be ...capturing many other terrorists

Another (the third a... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:


Another (the third at least) article refuting the original LA Times Talking Points article appears:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016721.php

Adrian Browne,The ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Adrian Browne,

The implication that during the Bush administration extraordinary rendition was used to torture people shows Hilzoy is just another partisan hack. The best interrogation of a suspect is done by those with the same background, religion, language and culture. The CIA used extraordinary rendition to have the best chance of obtaining actionable intelligence. Least you forget, they were trying to save American lives. The idea that the CIA sent them to other nations knowing they would be tortured (real torture) is a liberal myth.

Obama has reserved the right to use extraordinary rendition to have suspects interrogated by those with the same background, religion, language and culture. And for the same reason of obtaining actionable intelligence. And for the same purpose of trying to save American lives. As the LAT story shows, zero substantive difference from Bush, but with just enough Kool-aid to keep the left pacified.

Mac, i agree. Obama will be... (Below threshold)
Palinisevil:

Mac, i agree. Obama will be judged just as Dubya was, as to how long he can keep the U.S. safe from attack. Lets hope Obama can say eight years and not seven.

But if you think about it, Osama's great plan was to bring the U.S. to him, and it worked. Why risk so much planning another terrorist attack on U.S. soil when you can just go to Iraq.

I disagree about the rights definition of torture, but i suppose because of partisan politics both sides always will disagree. Psychological torture is just as bad as physical torture, physical torture heals. And may i remind you of Abu Ghraib lest any on here forget!

In my opinion Osama should be the highest priority, even Clinton for all his failings captured the terrorists responsible for the 93 bombing of the World Trade Center. Osama is still making his videos, laughing at Dubya's failure all the time. It's time he was shut up, permanently.

Mac, i agree. Obam... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Mac, i agree. Obama will be judged just as Dubya was, as to how long he can keep the U.S. safe from attack. Lets hope Obama can say eight years and not seven.

I hope Obama is successful in keeping the U.S safe from attack for as long as he's President, and as he's doing so I expect him to use every effective tool at his disposal.

But if you think about it, Osama's great plan was to bring the U.S. to him, and it worked. Why risk so much planning another terrorist attack on U.S. soil when you can just go to Iraq.

I don't know if that was Osama's plan. I can't read terrorist's minds, but if that was his plan it was based on the premises that the U.S. wouldn't be able to win in Afghanistan. In that respect Osama's plan failed just as it has done in Iraq. The Taliban has been making a comeback in Afghanistan, but Petraeus knows how to defeat them if Obama supports him with troops and political courage.

I disagree about the rights definition of torture, but i suppose because of partisan politics both sides always will disagree.

I can agree that we disagree.

In my opinion Osama should be the highest priority, even Clinton for all his failings captured the terrorists responsible for the 93 bombing of the World Trade Center.

In my opinion having Osama confined to a cave somewhere and sending out wimpy threats that go unfulfilled greatly undermines the morale and motivation of terrorists. It would be a mistake to make him into a martyr at this point.

I also think the success in Iraq and with the pending pullout of our troops greatly undermines the terrorists' propaganda. It's hard to motivate young Muslim men to go fight a nation that liberates Muslim people and leaves them with peace, hope, and a representative government. I think our system of limiting how long a President can server is working to advantage. Iraq sees how readily Bush gave up power when his term was up, which shows them the people really are in charge. Obama is also setting the right tone and giving Muslims a face saving way to live in peace with the U.S. Maybe it's the old bad cop good cop play, but if it works that's find with me.

Mac, i think you're under t... (Below threshold)
Palinisevil:

Mac, i think you're under the impression we've won in Iraq and Afghanistan, i think we have a long way to go before we can claim that. Democracy in Iraq is in it's infancy, sectarian violence is still very high and the Iraqi people are still without basic amenities like fresh running water and reliable utilities.

I know the right really wants to say Dubya won, but he didn't. I know the right really wants to look at Iraq now and say going to Iraq was justified, but it wasn't. We will probably have to maintain troops in Iraq long after Obama's withdrawal date, the insurgents won't go away.

Yes, a lot of hope can be seen, but only after a lot of damage had been done. It's only now you will see great changes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the foundation stones have been laid by Dubya but it will take Obama to build that peace and hope into a tangible reality.

And i disagree about Osama, we said killing Saddam would turn him into a martyr, and to some it did. But it didn't really change anything. Neither will taking out Osama, making excuses for Dubya's ineptitude in catching him won't bring final closure to the families of the 2,974 who died on 9/11. And not catching him only makes the terrorists know that they can attack a super-power and get away with it.

Mac, i think you'r... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Mac, i think you're under the impression we've won in Iraq and Afghanistan, i think we have a long way to go before we can claim that. Democracy in Iraq is in it's infancy, sectarian violence is still very high and the Iraqi people are still without basic amenities like fresh running water and reliable utilities.

I wouldn't lump Afghanistan in with Iraq, they are very different countries with very different histories. Iraq has had a strong central government from long before Saddam took power. Iraq also has valuable natural resources that, given their recent election, will go to rebuild utilities and other infrastructure and employ many Iraqis in the process. They know they don't need to spend money for defending against Iran as long as the U.S. has an interest in Iraq. With the U.S. leaving, the propaganda about fighting against the occupiers no longer rings true, but rather the U.S. came and left as liberators.

I know the right really wants to say Dubya won, but he didn't.

And it's just as certain the left really wants to say Bush didn't. Historians will decide the issue looking back from a time when much more is known.

I know the right really wants to look at Iraq now and say going to Iraq was justified, but it wasn't.

The question of justification was decided by the first gulf war when Saddam agreed to the terms of a cease fire. In violating those terms and in ignoring numerous UN mandates and US ultimatums Saddam gave the U.S. ample justification to remove him from power.

The question I think you are getting at was the Iraq war worth the lost lives and treasure it cost? That's a harder question to answer and it depends on future events as well as on knowing the cost of the now unknowable alternative of having left Saddam and his sadistic sons in power.

What we do know is that Saddam had been successful in bribing UN, French and Russian officials to not only obtain money for oil, but also to gain support in the UN security council. It's likely that if Bush had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would have been able to remove UN sanctions against him within a year or two. With no sanctions and billions in petrol dollars Saddam would have been able to rebuild his military. Saddam would have also been able to continue funding terrorism as he was doing in the West Bank. With the fall of Afghanistan, terrorists would have found a safe heaven in Iraq. Besides being a mass murderer, Saddam was known to be sadistic and vengeful even to the point of killing family members who crossed him. It's a safe bet that Saddam would use every resource at his disposal to harm America given his humiliating defeat in the first gulf war. The one thing that could and did unite Iraq and Iran was a common enemy with the proven resolve and resources to militarily defeat them. A level of threat Israel didn't present. The leaders of Iran and Iraq might be mad, but they are not stupid.

So compared to a rearmed Iraq under Saddam's rule how much would it be worth to have a democratic Iraq as a U.S. ally? Is that value greater than the cost of the Iraq war? Some will say no and others will say yes. The truth is we can never know for sure because we cannot know the final cost of leaving Saddam in power, but it's certain that cost must be considered.

We will probably have to maintain troops in Iraq long after Obama's withdrawal date, the insurgents won't go away.

I don't think anyone would argue that the U.S. didn't win WW2, yet we still have troops in Germany. We can only hope a grateful Iraq allows us to keep a base in Iraq to aid our operations in that part of the world. A U.S. presence has proven to be a stabilizing force in the world. Then again, the days when we can afford such operations may be coming to an end. We may have to leave world peace up to China.

Yes, the foundation stones have been laid by Dubya but it will take Obama to build that peace and hope into a tangible reality.

Such is the strength of our system of government that we elect leaders who have the right character and skills for the challenges of our times. Bush was the right man for the post 9/11 challenge and I hope Obama is the right man for the current challenges.

And i disagree about Osama, we said killing Saddam would turn him into a martyr, and to some it did. But it didn't really change anything. Neither will taking out Osama, making excuses for Dubya's ineptitude in catching him won't bring final closure to the families of the 2,974 who died on 9/11.

Bush did a good job of setting strategic goals and then getting out of the way and letting the military handle the tactical aspects while he dealt with the funding and political opponents. If Bush had allowed the left to goad him into focusing on capturing or killing Osama we would know likely be at war with Pakistan as well as Afghanistan. Obama must also let the military handle the tactical aspects or he will fail in Afghanistan.

And not catching him only makes the terrorists know that they can attack a super-power and get away with it.

The U.S. lost two building while the terrorists lost control of two nations. Only the insane would think they got away with it.

I wouldn't lump Afghanis... (Below threshold)
Palinisevil:

I wouldn't lump Afghanistan in with Iraq, they are very different countries with very different histories. Iraq has had a strong central government from long before Saddam took power. Iraq also has valuable natural resources that, given their recent election, will go to rebuild utilities and other infrastructure and employ many Iraqis in the process. They know they don't need to spend money for defending against Iran as long as the U.S. has an interest in Iraq. With the U.S. leaving, the propaganda about fighting against the occupiers no longer rings true, but rather the U.S. came and left as liberators.

I wouldn't sing the praises of the Iraqi government just yet. The recent elections saw an incredibly low voter turnout that seems to indicate that the Iraqi people don't like a democracy that does very little to help them. The Iraqis have become used to unprecedented violence in their nation since 2003, they don't feel safe on the streets anymore. They also feel humiliated under a foreign occupation.

Sectarianism is the biggest threat now and many in Iraq blame us for bringing back exiled politicians to rule them. You have to remember that Shia and Shiite Muslims just don't get along.

Also remember that no matter how democratic you think a voting system is, it can throw a curve ball at you. Dubya's "freedom agenda" in Palestine, which spent $500m in aid to make sure the elections were fair, elected Hamas!

So all this goody feely crap about how well the Iraqi government is doing, or will do is just so much hog wash. As with any government corruption is rife, and the actual Iraqi people come a very distant last on any of their politicians to do lists. In time the government may work, but at this moment in time it's one big cluster****.

[i]And it's just as certain the left really wants to say Bush didn't. Historians will decide the issue looking back from a time when much more is known.[/i]

The war was always unwinnable, we haven't lost. But the sooner people realize that we can't win the better. I'm sure different histories will be published in time, i'm sure Hollywood will have a say in who won or lost. Which history is taken to be the accepted one, only time will tell.

I agree, we can never know the cost of leaving Saddam in power. Saying he would have re-armed Iraq is simply conjecture not based on facts. And remember when the right said he had WMD, and then it was found he didn't. They said he could have built them from 91 sanctions or no, but he didn't. It was found that no WMD were built after 91. Iraq could have easily been another Iran, made threats and saber rattled but done very little to threaten our way of life. But again that's just conjecture as well, we'll never know because we invaded and turned the country into one God awful mess.

Again conjecture about Osama not based on any facts. We'll never know what would have happened if he'd been caught, Dubya's failure is complete in that aspect. Right after 9/11 Dubya's main priority in Afghanistan, in his own words, was to "find Osama bin Laden". Then the Tora Bora screw up and suddenly 5 months later, with egg all over Dubya's face, he claims that he doesn't care where Osama is. It's like going to win something and loosing and saying you didn't want the prize anyway.

[i]The U.S. lost two building while the terrorists lost control of two nations. Only the insane would think they got away with it.[/i]

Are you for real, we suffered the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we lost 2,974 American citizens, some had to jump to their deaths because it was better than being burnt alive! I would be very careful when being so flippant about 9/11. And when did terrorists control Iraq? Saddam wasn't a terrorist, nor did he have any links to Al Qaeda, no matter how some on the right tried to make it so.

We suffered as an entire nation on 9/11, the whole world felt our pain. And the man behind the attacks is still taunting us, making a mockery of us to this day. Ask any of the families of the 9/11 victims what they would want to happen to Osama, it certainly isn't the rights version of just letting him go. *eyeroll*

Whats funny is that everyon... (Below threshold)
mike:

Whats funny is that everyone is making this into a polarized issue about who will have been worse. BUSH OR OBAMA. WHo cares can we all now finally agree that this two mparty system of liers and crooks needs to be done away with. ANd also that the media is not liberal or conservative but elitist also!!.

The media is reporting that hes changing everything and doing away with all the torture policy. Ignmoring the truth! it reminds me of the troop surge lie for McCain. When the mahdi army made a truce with the US because the Iraninas helped. Then the media pretended like it was because of the surge!

They are all liers.

What Obama proves is that i... (Below threshold)
gordy:

What Obama proves is that it is the same old U.S. terrorist/police state no matter the figurehead. This catty, party finger pointing is just effete nonsense.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy