Obama WH adopts Bush indefinite-detention position
posted at 8:48 am on September 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Remember when the Left scoffed at the argument from George W. Bush that claimed the authorization to use military force allowed the executive branch to hold captured terrorists indefinitely, without criminal trial? Bush’s opponents screamed about human rights and due process, and claimed that Bush had abused his power. Those critics included Barack Obama, who regularly castigated the Bush administration for its failure to provide his idea of due process to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, as well as blasting Bush for his argument that he didn’t require Congress to act to maintain that power.
Now? Change you can believe in, baby:
The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.
Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.
But President Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of Congress.
The Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night that “the administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress” under the use of force resolution. “The administration is not currently seeking additional authorization,” the statement said.
This is known as a distinction without a difference. If the White House doesn’t see the need to get Congressional authorization for continued indefinite detention, then it means that the White House believes it has that power under the Constitution, whence it derives all authority. They may not want to say it out loud, but their actions speak volumes. Obama has adopted the Bush position in its entirety.
And this is, of course, another example of the Geraghty Axiom. The New York Times has trouble reconciling this with Obama’s statement in May on the subject:
Still, the position surprised some critics who had expected after a speech by Mr. Obama in May that he would seek legislation to put the system of indefinite detention on firmer political and legal ground. In that speech at the National Archives, Mr. Obama said that he was considering continuing indefinite detention in some limited cases but that he would not act unilaterally.
“We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded,” he said at the time. “They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone.”
The explanation? All of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date — all of them. Ask the Poles, who heard Obama offer rhetorical support at about the same time for a land-based missile shield, a controversial issue for which Polish politicians had risked much, only to have Obama flip-flop on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion.
Will Obama acknowledge that Bush had it right all along, and that war powers give the executive branch the right to hold unlawful combatants indefinitely until the end of hostilities? Or will he attempt, as the New York Times reports, to make distinctions without differences?
Update: Jazz Shaw is spitting nails over this reversal. He and I disagree on the policy point, but we both agree that Obama is a hypocrite.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
We’ve also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. (Applause.)
therightscoop on September 24, 2009 at 8:51 AM
There was no history until The One ascended to his throne.
kingsjester on September 24, 2009 at 8:52 AM
I’m pretty sure I heard him say just yesterday to a group of dignified, articulate world leaders that we wouldn’t be doing things the old way anymore.
a capella on September 24, 2009 at 8:53 AM
President, Itsall Aboutme will never give President Bush credit this.
yoda on September 24, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Can’t wait for him to pull out the water board
PatriotRider on September 24, 2009 at 8:56 AM
credit on this.
yoda on September 24, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Obama: This is not the indefinite-detention I once knew…
doriangrey on September 24, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Everyone knows that reptiles have forked tongues.
bluegrass on September 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM
It doesn’t matter, Ed. The whole world loves us now. We are Obama. Obama is America. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
OhioCoastie on September 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM
I ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST GITMO BEFORE I VOTED FOR IT
bluegrass on September 24, 2009 at 9:02 AM
I am not surprised at this change of position from Dear Leader’s administration.
The only thing that is worrisome is who gets deemed a “terrorist.” Someone who wants to cause violent harm to the US or someone who opposes government run health care?
rbj on September 24, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Better adopt the GITMO detention facility as well.
There’s no room at the inn stateside prison facilities for our own criminals, let alone the damned criminal illegal aliens, themselves tame compared to these terrorist monsters from hell.
maverick muse on September 24, 2009 at 9:04 AM
No. What Bush did was “indefinite detention”. This is “limited indefinite detention”. Totally different.
LibTired on September 24, 2009 at 9:04 AM
U.S. Court of International Trade un-adopts Obama imposition of tariffs on Chinese tires.
ICBM on September 24, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Obama adopts indefinite-detention in order to abuse it upon our own citizens whose only offense may be limited to disagreeing with Obama.
maverick muse on September 24, 2009 at 9:05 AM
lolol…nice
Jeff from WI on September 24, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Well, what’s said at that bar scene from Star Wars, otherwise known as the UN General Assembly, doesn’t really count anyway.
TXUS on September 24, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Oh! I fully understand the difference! LOLOL
Jeff from WI on September 24, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Well, he’s not likely to admit that W was right about anything, so…
Along with the Geraghty Axiom is the Bob’s Kid Axiom: Soon after his first security briefing BO will suddenly do an about face on many of his pre-election demands because he will find out that a) the danger is greater that he thought, and b) GWB was actually doing a pretty good job of keeping Americans safe.
My lefty friends scoffed when I was saying this a year ago, because I was accusing the O of not being informed. Yeah, I was. And I was right.
Bob's Kid on September 24, 2009 at 9:06 AM
“my nation, my people”
becki51758 on September 24, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Don’t ask silly questions. Of course not
Ding, ding, ding, ding!
NoFanofLibs on September 24, 2009 at 9:06 AM
LibTired, is that something like double secret probation?
OhioCoastie on September 24, 2009 at 9:07 AM
I think we have the makings of a new verb here. I didn’t change my position. I merely obama-ed.
Mojave Mark on September 24, 2009 at 9:07 AM
If this keeps up this guy is going to become a pretty decent liar.
docflash on September 24, 2009 at 9:08 AM
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! ::snort::
Thanks, Ed. I needed a laugh this morning.
Physics Geek on September 24, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Classless jackass.
Lied about and slandered President Bush throughout his campaign.
Now when he adopts the policies he railed against, he pretends they are different.
This is yet another reason I don’t cut this guy an inch of slack.
During the campaign, he acted as being president would be a breeze, a cinch.
Now that he’s finding out how hard it is, maybe at least privately he’s sorry for what he said about President Bush.
NoDonkey on September 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM
This is not correct. Obama claims that he has, in fact, the authorization he needs in the form of the already-passed congressional resolution. It theoretically wouldn’t apply if, say, we got into a tussle with Venezuela.
Bush claimed he didn’t need authorization at all, that it was implicit in his powers as enumerated by the Constitution. That is, he could do what he damn well pleased, whenever.
At any rate, both are unacceptable interpretations of the Constitution, international law as heretofore accepted by the U.S. and the fundamental principles of American democracy.
Condemning someone to life in prison without a trial is simply wrong on every level.
Bleeds Blue on September 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM
This is for all those pro-life, conservative, small government types they intend to arrest at the earliest possible convenience. During whatever next crisis they will deem too good to waste.
JellyToast on September 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM
There is no history before the moment that SOB wakes up in the morning.
Every day.
BigWyo on September 24, 2009 at 9:13 AM
It takes unprecedented arrogance to get up and deliver a speech at the UN that is essentially all about oneself. There was no discussion of national values and priorities- it was all about Obama and what a wonderful job he is doing.
Americans today should be very angry that our “leader” has decided that he is a citizen of the world whose mission is to bring America to her knees.
highhopes on September 24, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Like Groundhog Day with a cockroach.
highhopes on September 24, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Hey Barry I’m real happy for you and Imma let you finish your waffle, but George Bush had the best indefinite detention policy of ALL TIME.
LibTired on September 24, 2009 at 9:15 AM
To paraphrase Bubba, it all depends on what your definition of “indefinite detention” is.
kingsjester on September 24, 2009 at 9:17 AM
I just wanted to note that I love the use of the term “Geraghty’s Axiom.” It fits so perfectly.
Abby Adams on September 24, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Future posts like this to be accompanied by the opening song Lies by the Violent Femmes:
It’s by a very famous President no critic can criticise
And then I pause a moment and I start to realize
He’s tellin lies lies lies
lies lies lies
lies lies lies
WashJeff on September 24, 2009 at 9:20 AM
No amount of facepalm will suffice.
What exactly is the difference between “no idea when I will be released” and “no idea when I will be released, but not forever”?
MadisonConservative on September 24, 2009 at 9:21 AM
The right to hold enemy combatants indefinitely derives not only from the Constitution’s war power (which permits Congress to declare war), but also via the treaty power which allows the President, with the consent of Congress, to enter into treaties whose obligations are considered part of our Constitution. We have signed the Geneva Conventions (the treaty which is applicable to wars), which not only says that we must treat detainees humanely, but also that we are allowed to hold them for the duration of the war, and that they are not to be subjected to our civilian justice system unless our own soldiers are subject to same, but that they are instead to be subject to our military courts martial system for any crimes they have committed.
Congress can try to limit or direct the President’s power in this regard, but that attempt at limitation or direction is subject to Presidential veto.
unclesmrgol on September 24, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Anyone ventured into the world of the lefty blogs to gauge their reaction as of yet?
flyawaybird on September 24, 2009 at 9:23 AM
From this time forward, November 3 2008 will be recognized as the birth of a new universal man, a reboot of the human experience and will be memorialized with the resetting of the Gregorian Calender, to the year zero. For thousands of years into the future, people will look back in time and praise the birth of this new era of enlightenment, a bright shinning torch making light what had before been dim. Permitting those who could not see, to now see clearly. It is truly an amazing moment in time to be alive and to witness the making of history, or something like that.
R Square on September 24, 2009 at 9:24 AM
We have done it to the enemy and had it done to our soldiers in every war. This war is no different.
Should we have released Nazi and Japanese soldiers after capture but during our war with those countries?
unclesmrgol on September 24, 2009 at 9:26 AM
.. and just in time to get some Domestic Terrorists and lock them up for good.
popularpeoplesfront on September 24, 2009 at 9:27 AM
When the islamists wackos verifiably capitulate and hostilities are ended, then they can be released. I suspect that these people will be old or dead by the time this, if ever, happens.
WashJeff on September 24, 2009 at 9:30 AM
No more snake oil for me, thanks. I’m stuffed.
Bruce in NH on September 24, 2009 at 9:31 AM
popularpeoplesfront on September 24, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Domestic Terrorists? You mean BIll Ayers, Van Jones, and their comrades? I’m all for it!
kingsjester on September 24, 2009 at 9:31 AM
So you’re saying we should just execute them?
I find that rather harsh.
Abby Adams on September 24, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Indefinite detention is one way to handle those pesky racist teabaggers.
farright on September 24, 2009 at 9:34 AM
We knew, or assumed, that those wars would be finite in length. We also knew that the overwhelming majority of those captured were, in fact, combatants, because they were caprrtured on the field of battle. So, pretty much 100% confidence that they were “guilty” and a finite sentence.
On the other hand, we both assume that the “war on terror” is a generational, if not longer, struggle and we know that a not-insignificant number of prisoners are not guilty of the actions with which they were charged. The were sold out for unrelated causes, or mistakes were made, as will happen. So, a significant number of innocents and a de facto life sentence. There’s an obligation to sort them out.
If nothing else, it’s counterproductive to the effort to act like a military junta that can ruin people’s lives on a whim. It’s a propaganda victory for them (ie, a recruiting tool) and it takes us off the moral high ground.
Bleeds Blue on September 24, 2009 at 9:34 AM
was thinking the same thing as I was reading the piece…
—
You know dear leader will never admit it in public, but he is saying it behind closed doors…Dang it, BUSH WAS RIGHT!
cmsinaz on September 24, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Brings to mind this parody: Obama Orders Indefinite Detention of Officials from Previous Administration So They Can Continue Policies He Opposed During the Presidential Campaign http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-orders-indefinite-detention-of.html
Mervis Winter on September 24, 2009 at 9:35 AM
“Runnin’ things…” -Giovanni “Johnny Casper” Gasparo.
Akzed on September 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Bull!
Imprisoning an enemy combatant until his side surrenders in the war THEY started sure as Hell is legal. And NO President, Dhimmicrat or Rethuglican, needs Congress’s permission to do just that. There is no position in international law which requires combatants to be tried for anything other than war crimes, which many of this twits are not guilty of. However, they are guilty of illegally fighting a war, without declarations, without uniforms, and without following the rules of war (including surrendering under white flag, and then using hidden weapons to kill American soldiers who are advancing to take them prisoner, and killing captured soldiers without reason).
What is wrong on every level is your position that says terrorists who kill without legally declaring war and following the Geneva Conventions on Warfare, without wearing uniforms, and without regard to targeting of civilians deserve to be given trials of any kind. Under the GC, if they target civilians directly as the legitimate targets of their actions (including using them as human shields), then they are illegal combatants and shall be executed as such. No trial and no quarter should be given.
The fact that we allow these murderers to exist at all is proof that we are far more civilized and fair than they will ever be. They deserve Death, pure and simple. They killed 3000 innocent civilians in NYC in 3 hrs. They shot American soldiers while under a white flag of surrender. They hid behind the skirts of their women while they shot at American troops, and they killed corpsmen. All against the GC. They have no rights as American citizens. Only rights as illegal combatants. They are receiving treatment as POWs, which is far more lenient than the treatment required of the US in this matter.
After all, condemning 3000 innocent Americans and visiting legal aliens to Death without reason is simply wrong on every level.
Subsunk
Subsunk on September 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM
???
Is that worse than waterboarding?!
Akzed on September 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM
hear! hear!
cmsinaz on September 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM
“Stop visiting me or I’ll surely die!!!”
Akzed on September 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM
I am glad that Obama has decided to hold the terrorists indefinately and hope that he sees the light and leaves GITMO open for business. Are liberal heads exploding yet?
farright on September 24, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Anyone see the Claude Rains fest on Turner Classic Movies last night?
Del Dolemonte on September 24, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Del Dolemonte on September 24, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I’m shocked, shocked that they paid tribute to Larry Talbot’s Dad.
kingsjester on September 24, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Your first assumption is completely wrong. Nobody knows when a war will end, and anyone who does is abnormally prescient. With regard to being captured on field of battle and resultant guilt, if you are bearing arms of any type, you are, for purposes of the Convention, a soldier — either regular or irregular. The Convention does not indicate any form of court to determine who is or is not a combatant in that case — the assumption of guilt is implicit. The Convention does allow the immediate execution of any irregular soldier (one not wearing a uniform), so these detainees are actually being treated more fairly than the Convention dictates.
Your whole premise is flawed. I can’t believe that you believe what you have written. Its flimsy arguments float in the wind, given their lightness.
unclesmrgol on September 24, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Will there be pictures of heads exploding at HuffPo and Kos?
Cindy Munford on September 24, 2009 at 9:45 AM
But the recidivism rate is outstanding.
thomasaur on September 24, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Historic!!!
You Betcha.
seven on September 24, 2009 at 9:46 AM
You have my position to fry every terrorist you can catch and PROVE to be a terrorist. You can imprison everyone you catch on the battlefield until “peace” is achieved. These are not the people who are affected by this policy. It is people who were captured under suspicion of aiding or participating in terrorist acts but whom, in may cases, we don’t know to be terrorists. Random, indefinite detention is, however, a hallmark of a police state and should not be embraced by the U.S.
Bleeds Blue on September 24, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Bingo!
MrScribbler on September 24, 2009 at 9:49 AM
+100+100
unclesmrgol on September 24, 2009 at 9:50 AM
No but I saw the Jets beat the Pats the other day
CWforFreedom on September 24, 2009 at 9:51 AM
F–K em! they’re prisoners of war. For once Obamabi is doing the right thing even if he pissed and moaned about previously when he didn’t have power. Don’t count on the left to be consistent and criticize him for it cuz it must be Bush’s fault he has to do it.
gsherin on September 24, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Why do we need your permission? Two administrations in a row have taken the approach that they don’t need your permission. Why are you inserting yourself into this process again? What treaty or Constitutional provision says that anyone has to give a rat’s behind about what “Bleeds Blue” demands from either Bush or Obama? In fact, both Bush and Obama are well insulated from you by (a) the Electoral College, and (b) Congress.
Now, if you were to open your freezer and pull out a few bricks for the boys, then doors might open. But as of now…
unclesmrgol on September 24, 2009 at 9:53 AM
A figure of speech. But I knew, even as I hit “submit,” that some addled pinhead was going to make the post you just did.
Congratulations. Now go unwad your panties.
Bleeds Blue on September 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM
More BS. We knew NOTHING about how long those wars would take or how long we would have to keep any POWs we captured. These terrorist illegal combatant assh*les were captured on the field of battle also, but they broke the rules and were spared anyway. That doesn’t make them legal combatants.
There is no guilt or innocence amongst legal combatants following the rules of war. As a POW, you are simply interred for the duration of the war. A war THEY STARTED, and which they willingly entered into. Whether they were sold by their own enemies into captivitiy as “al Qaeda”, or not, their cases have been reviewed by the US military and those found to have been detained in error have already been sent home. Those remaining at GITMO are GUILTY of waging war illegally. No questions remain. The sorting has already been done by military tribunals and military intelligence. You simply assume they are wrong because they are military and not ACLU lawyers.
If nothing else, your position is counterproductive to the effort to protect American citizens and innocent foreign civilians from slaughter which that can ruin people’s lives on a whim. 9-11 was a propaganda victory (and more) for them (ie, a recruiting tool) and it takes them off the moral high ground while elevating our responses accordingly. The fact that we keep them alive instead of executing them on the battlefield as illegal combatants is what keeps us on the moral high ground. Thugs who rape women for sport, behead captives for fun, beat women for religious reasons, and dress in women’s clothing to hide from the authorities while they perpetrate their homicide bombings deserve no quarter.
Subsunk
Subsunk on September 24, 2009 at 10:02 AM
They’re illegal combatants, caught armed on the battle field without insignia or unies. They are not POWs.
The US Army Field Manual during WWII instructed ICs to be tortured for info then shot. End o’ problem.
Sometime between then and now we developed testosterone problems, probably contracted somewhere in the feverish Potomac swamps of MD and VA.
Akzed on September 24, 2009 at 10:04 AM
we should treat al-qaeda like FDR treated the german spies who landed in NJ…get what we can…then shoot em.
or better yet..set them free, in the middle of the ocean, at night, with a life jacket…just to prolong it…
right4life on September 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Dear Leader, The One. Lead us into the new realm, away from false prophets and false profits. [genuflect here]
Green Muse on September 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM
You have automatically assumed that military lawyers who have reviewed every single case at GITMO are wrong for classifying these guys as illegal combatants. “Mistakes” made have already been corrected as over 400 combatants have been sent home and less than 300 remain captive. There is nothing random about their detention whatsoever. Just because a military lawyer says they have reason to believe they are illegal combatants, and you disagree doesn’t mean the United States Government should do anything about granting these assh*les more rights than they legally deserve.
Subsunk
“Addled Pinhead”
Subsunk on September 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Isn’t GITMO “supposed” to close on or before 1/20/2010? Don’t think that will happen….thank the good Lord!
jbh45 on September 24, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Name ONE of these so called unfortunate captives whom we don’t know are either illegal combatants or terrorists. Or is that another DNC/CAIR talking point?
Subsunk
Subsunk on September 24, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Obama and Bush…..same coin, different sides.
YES WE CAN! (destroy America)
ex-Democrat on September 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Is there a list of terrorist-types that have been captured since Obama has been President?
Who are they and where are they being held?
albill on September 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM
I want all you raaaaacisssssst conservatives to pay real close attention to the photo of Boooosh hugging The One. It’s crystal clear he is thinking that he’d like to shiv his ass because he hates black people. I am so grateful we have our liberal members here at Hot Air to open our eyes to this kind of blatant despicable racism!
s/
csdeven on September 24, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Good question but you do know they were guilty /s
CWforFreedom on September 24, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Panties unwadded. Your next request?
unclesmrgol on September 24, 2009 at 10:33 AM
What’s the manual number for this one (there are many US Army Field Manuals covering all manner of behavior)? I’d like to see this for myself.
unclesmrgol on September 24, 2009 at 10:36 AM
“YOU LIE!”
(Episode 527)
profitsbeard on September 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Obama also comes with an expiration date…Nov 2012.
GarandFan on September 24, 2009 at 10:48 AM
That would be Kafka’s “Metamorphosis“.
Or Obamamorphosis, in its current form.
profitsbeard on September 24, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I saw the a photocopy of the relevent pages of the WWI-era book compared to the same pages/section of the same book during Korea where the same advice was excised. I might have it at home, can’t site the pub data for it. Sorry.
Akzed on September 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM
The ACLU really needs to update their web site… indefinite detention is now cool!
mankai on September 24, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Another “war crime” they can’t prosecute Bush for.
Christian Conservative on September 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM
I can’t wait to see who the lucky people are that get the GITMO crowd in their backyard. Happy New Year to those hapless schmucks.
kens on September 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM
FLIP-FLOP, FLIP-FLOP, FLIP-FLOP
rjoco1 on September 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM
http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=obama+war+criminal
29Victor on September 24, 2009 at 11:38 AM
He’s trampling the constitution!!!
Obama’s a dictator with no concern for human rights!!!!
Oh my God what has America come to!!!!
Let’s hear it liberals,,all the whining and crying about dictatorships,no respect for the law,tearing up the Constitution blah…blah…blah.
It really has become such a joke looking at the 180′ turn all the super moral and ethical liberals are having to take to defend Mr. 57 states.
Rendition… Obama still using it.
HAAAA…HAAA…HAAAAA…HAAAAA!!!!!
State Secrets…you bet, Obama still using them.
HAAAAA….HAAAAA…HAAAA….HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Enhanced Interrogation …… Yep, Obama still using it.
HAAAAA….HAAAAAA….HAAAAAA….HAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
NSA wiretapping ……still using it.
HAAAA….HAAAAA….HAAAAAAAA…HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
Secret Prisons… Obama still using them.
HAAAAA…..HAAAA….HAAAAAA….HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
Signing Statements…… Obama still using them.
HAAAAA….HAAAAAA….HAAAAA…HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Get the picture liberals.
No credibility…not a clue….absolutely stuck on stupid…what a joke.
See why we called you a bunch of f$#king morons over your faux outrage and whining about all the rights you were supposedly losing.
See why we consistently called you out for politicizing the war and the policies Bush installed to fight it.
We were smart enough to see that Bush was doing what it took to fight the jihadist and keep America safe while you yelled and screamed about bogus conspiracy theories and made up scandals.
Now your hero Obama is doing the exact same things you called Bush a war criminal over and liberals offer nothing but silence because they have there lips pressed so firmly to Obama’s butt they are lucky to get a breath in much less address their blatant hypocrisy and ignorance.
liberals…..nothing but a bunch of pathetic idiots.
Baxter Greene on September 24, 2009 at 12:50 PM
A former friend actually cited Obama’s stance on this as the primary reason to vote for him.
Ha-ha.
Jim Treacher on September 24, 2009 at 1:18 PM
The hypocrisy of these people is just stunning.
Terrye on September 24, 2009 at 1:36 PM
BUSH WAS RIGHT.
But Obama and the American Left have done immense damage to our image abroad.
Their entirely self-serving and ungrounded hysteria over Bush policies defined reporting on these policies across the world for year after year. Their belated flip-flopping will not be noticed, because the MSM are not making a big deal out of it. The foreign press follows the NYT, WaPo and CNN in picking stories. I know, I live in Europe.
Think about that next time a liberal says that Obama will make us “better liked” internationally. Truth is, we will never get rid of the mud the Left threw at us for purely power-political reasons.
el gordo on September 24, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Same here.
Seriously LMAO over this one.
The Ugly American on September 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »