Althouse: "The Washington Post today reported that the Obama administration has given up on any hope of prosecuting Khalid Sheihk Mohammed in Lower Manhattan."

November 14, 2010

"The Washington Post today reported that the Obama administration has given up on any hope of prosecuting Khalid Sheihk Mohammed in Lower Manhattan."

"Moreover, there is apparently little appetite in the administration to revive plans to try KSM via military commission, and they may simply allow Mohammed to remain incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, without trial."

After all the bold talk in the campaign, Obama apparently has no idea what to do with the detainees. Or, that he had ideas, but they encountered reality. Why not reach out to newly reddened America by saying Bush actually got it right and proceed with the military commissions?

129 comments:

AllenS said...: Obama has no idea what to do with the detainees, the economy, the wars, or any other thing. He is completely unprepared in knowledge and experience to be the POTUS.; 11/14/10, 8:46 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

First off, I exclude Robert Cook from this diatribe…he may be a Stalinist/Leftist shill, but he’s consistent and non-hypocritical.

But, MUL, Alpha, Garage, Ritmo…HAH! Wasn’t there some kind of “fierce moral urgency” or America’s standing in the world or some such rhetoric about the trial or non-trial of terrorists from you and your candidate?

That dumb old cowboy war-criminal just didn’t get “it” but your guy did…only now Barak doesn’t seem to get it, either. I’m sure you’ll all be blogging from Lafayette Park on the breaks from your protests.

We’ll all come by and bring Fair Trade Half-Caff Soy Lattes to warm you up in your dark nights protesting this latest Human Rights Tragedy…and mayhap a free-range chicken and arugula whole-grain bun sandwich to help you keep your strength up. Unless, of course, you’re vegans.; 11/14/10, 8:48 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Had ideas, but they encountered reality.

The NewAge Democratic Party slogan for 2012?; 11/14/10, 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: I'll do Kookie's work for him:

BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL!

OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL!

The U.S. is a criminal imperialistic warmongering plutocratic state!

I alone am holy and virtuous.

I, Kookie, bleed for the sins of America!; 11/14/10, 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Obama apparently has no idea what to do with the detainees.

really?

REALLY?

Who could have seen this coming?; 11/14/10, 8:56 AM
Meade said...: "First off, I exclude Robert Cook…"

Okay, but I'd be interested to know whether or not Robert Cook, et al., consider Khalid Sheihk Mohammed deserving of prosecution for committing war crimes.; 11/14/10, 9:01 AM
ThreeSheets said...: Wow. Between civilian trials or military tribunals who knew Obama would find something worse, no trial.

Progressive heads must be exploding.; 11/14/10, 9:02 AM
jr565 said...: To add to the confusion, the Obama administration has already used miltary comissions more often than not on most of it's detainees, without, apparently, batting an eye. No outrage, and no moral recriminations. But then, why not simply use military tribunals to try KSM?
If I were a low level detainee who was thrown into a military tribunal while KSM got flown to new york and got a brand spanking new trial with all the trimmings, I might question the fairness of two levels of justice, one for the low jihadist and one for their masterminds.
I; 11/14/10, 9:07 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Hey, Obama inherited this mess, don't you remember? It's unfair and racist to expect the smartest guy in the room to accomplish anything under other than ideal conditions.

Leave Barack alone!; 11/14/10, 9:10 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Richard Posner proposed a third method for prosecuting crimes where national security is at stake. Why not explore what a real legal scholar has to say about all this instead of using it as yet another prop to fuel the retarded "red state-blue state" divide?; 11/14/10, 9:10 AM
MayBee said...: It is so easy to be president and make presidential decisions...when you are a junior senator and someone else is president.; 11/14/10, 9:12 AM
AllenS said...: That Trickling Down you just heard, was pee.; 11/14/10, 9:13 AM
mesquito said...: I still say they should close Gitmo, and reopen it ten minutes later under the name "Camp Snugglebunnies".; 11/14/10, 9:14 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Could you tell from the taste, Allen?; 11/14/10, 9:16 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: I still say they should close Gitmo, and reopen it ten minutes later under the name "Camp Snugglebunnies".

lol; 11/14/10, 9:17 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Wasn’t there some kind of “fierce moral urgency” or America’s standing in the world or some such rhetoric about the trial or non-trial of terrorists from you and your candidate?

Joe, America's standing has improved as a result of Obama's election. If he's allowed to get away with what Bush did because of his ability to gain greater trust from civil libertarians or the left, then tough cookies.

That must be as annoying to you as it is for other people to hear that W. was elected on the basis of people preferring to have a beer with him. Everyone's got their reasons for inane reasoning. Deal.; 11/14/10, 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Joe, America's standing has improved as a result of Obama's election.

It has?

German and England are lecturing Obama on fiscal responsibility.

The Iranians are thumbing their noses at his bowing and scraping.

He just bombed out at the Korean economic summit.

What "standing" has he improved?

I'd say his standing as a patsy among the Jihadis is a vast improvement over Bush.; 11/14/10, 9:26 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: And it's analogous to Bush getting away with massive expansions of government - (spending, Medicare) - because he had cred with the right and the fundies. No big secret here.; 11/14/10, 9:26 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Really Big, you couldn’t tell how America’s standing from the poll standings or from the latest foreign policy “success” overseas. DEAL.; 11/14/10, 9:28 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Global Perceptions of U.S. Leadership Improve in 2009; 11/14/10, 9:28 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Maybe if you tried using a verb every now and then your coherence would improve, Joe. It's more difficult and complicated than grunting and snorting, I know. But it helps to get your point across.; 11/14/10, 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Big, you've misinterpreted the job of the President, just as Obama has.

It's more important to be feared than to be liked.; 11/14/10, 9:31 AM
ricpic said...: C'mon Holder, admit it: you love the Sheik.; 11/14/10, 9:31 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
And it's analogous to Bush getting away with massive expansions of government - (spending, Medicare) - because he had cred with the right and the fundies. No big secret here.

Gonna have to work on your revisionist history Big, the Right didn’t approve of McCain-Feingold, NCLB, the Medicare Part D , Harriet Meirs, or McCain-Kennedy…but if you think the Right was “OK” with that, can’t help you.; 11/14/10, 9:31 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Poll 2009, eh? Check out the 2010 Muslim polls, then, Biggie. And the South Korean Free Trade Deal? Or the support for US monetary policy or the united front against the PRC?; 11/14/10, 9:33 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Big, your argumentum ad hominem is not even entertaining, much less informative.; 11/14/10, 9:34 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Gonna have to work on your revisionist history Big, the Right didn’t approve of McCain-Feingold, NCLB, the Medicare Part D , Harriet Meirs, or McCain-Kennedy…but if you think the Right was “OK” with that, can’t help you.

Yeah. Ok. And their "criticism" of Bush for any of that was as muted as any "criticism" of Obama from the left has been for how he deviated from their directives.

Point proved.

You don't even seem to understand what the argument is, do you? If you want to fight just for the sake of fighting, join the army.; 11/14/10, 9:35 AM
jr565 said...: Big Govt Trickling wrote:

Global Perceptions of U.S. Leadership Improve in 2009

Er, do you have to go back to 2009 to find a link that shows global perceptions of US leadership improves? In 2008 or 2009 you could also find Obama getting a nobel peace prize. Do you know think that such a prize was warranted?; 11/14/10, 9:36 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Do you know think that such a prize was warranted?

Who cares?

We are arguing facts, not personal impressions.

At least, that's what I'm doing. Can't speak for the other opinion-mongerers.; 11/14/10, 9:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Point proved.

That's funny.

Your posts are parody.; 11/14/10, 9:38 AM
Anonymous said...: We are arguing facts,

Really?

From the author of:
America's standing has improved as a result of Obama's election.

Hint: that is not a fact.

Again, your posts are parody.; 11/14/10, 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: They can't try him because they are afraid of what comes next. The sheihk will obviously be found guilty--and then what? Execute him? I don't think so. That would be "offensive"!; 11/14/10, 9:41 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Hint: that is not a fact.

It's easily concluded from a credible poll. That poll constitutes a fact.

Again, your posts are parody.

Compared to your substance-free opinions, I'll take that as a compliment.; 11/14/10, 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: If he's allowed to get away with what Bush did because of his ability to gain greater trust from civil libertarians or the left,

Huh?

This is a fact to you, clown?

Um, in case you missed it: People like you spent 6+ years asserting non-stop that Bush "shredded" the constitution.

You are now inanely asserting that Obama earned some unspecified (purposely because it can't be proven) "trust" for doing the exact same thing.

You do understand that makes your criticisms of Bush invalid, right?; 11/14/10, 9:42 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Hint: that is not a fact.

It's easily concluded from a credible poll. That poll constitutes a fact.

Again, your posts are parody.

Considering your substance-free opinions, I'll take that as a compliment.; 11/14/10, 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: It's easily concluded from a credible poll.

Really?

How about this poll?

Only 14 percent of Turks have a favorable view of America; 15 percent of Palestinians; and 16 percent of Pakistanis

How about other polls you don't like?; 11/14/10, 9:45 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: People like you...

What the hell is this supposed to mean? You don't know me. You don't cite any of my opinions. What's up with the classification scheme? Stop being a lazy-ass and argue with what's said, rather than with your retarded stereotype.

You are now inanely asserting that Obama earned some unspecified (purposely because it can't be proven) "trust" for doing the exact same thing.

I said no such thing. I said he had trust to begin with. Not because of what he did at Guantanamo. Try sounding out the words if it helps.

You do understand that makes your criticisms of Bush invalid, right?

This is not an argument; it's not even a valid statement of anything.; 11/14/10, 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Considering your substance-free opinions,

That is hysterical.

You think opinion poll results = facts.

Especially when they fit your biases.

I love how you idiots assert that America lost or gained standing.

As if there are any facts to behind such assertions.; 11/14/10, 9:48 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: How about other polls you don't like?

It's hard to know whether I can like a poll or dislike it if I don't even know the source, let alone methodology. But that's why I cite or link. You just throw out bullshit without a source because all that matters to you is whether the conclusion meets your pre-defined expectations.

Child's play.

Come back when you want to proceed to the adult version of this game.; 11/14/10, 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: You don't cite any of my opinions.

Er, I'm citing what you said.

Your opinions are quite clear.

They're formed by ignorance.

I said no such thing.

Huh?

You said: "he's allowed to get away with what Bush did.

You remember that, right?

You can read words and understand you are admitting that Obama is doing what Bush did, correct?

It is funny to watch you run from what you just wrote.

There is a reason for that.; 11/14/10, 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Come back when you want to proceed to the adult version of this game.

Laugh out loud funny.

I liked this too:
You don't know me.

I know you're an idiot.

As evidenced by your drivel.; 11/14/10, 9:52 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: You think opinion poll results = facts.

It is a fact that a poll conducted by Gallup found a median of 51% of the world approving of the job performance of the current leadership of the U.S. in 2009, up from a median of 34% in 2008.

When is recess over? Do we have to bring out milk and cookies first?; 11/14/10, 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: This is not an argument; it's not even a valid statement of anything.

Actually it is valid.
You can't speak to it.

Which is why your response is so vacuous.; 11/14/10, 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: It is a fact that a poll conducted by Gallup found a median of 51% of the world approving of the job performance of the current leadership of the U.S. in 2009, up from a median of 34% in 2008.

And then what?

You are talking about image clown.

Image.

That is not a fact.

You can't grasp this because you voted for image in 2008.

Mainly because you're not that bright and easily misled.; 11/14/10, 9:54 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Actually, you don't know anything.

You just write opinions according to your gut-script and belch them out on to a page without any thought, or even any external input for that matter.

As such they're worthless.

Regarding your equally worthless opinion of me, I consider the source.

Consider yourself peed upon.; 11/14/10, 9:56 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: I always suspected the real reason was something like this, but it's nice of Big Govt guy to come over and state it so baldly.

Your guy isn't allowed to detain people indefinitely without trial because he's yucky and people hate him.

Our guy is allowed to detain people indefinitely without trial because he's awesome and people love him.

Weird, wild stuff.; 11/14/10, 9:56 AM
Anonymous said...: If he's allowed to get away with what Bush did because of his ability to gain greater trust from civil libertarians or the left,

Er, Obama didn't close Gitmo.

Er, Obama is killing civilians with drones.

Er, Obama forced a health care mandate on a country that doesn't want it.

Er, Obama is arguing in court that is ok to detain people indefinitely without trial.

You are saying it is ok.; 11/14/10, 9:59 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: What criteria people used to determine their approval of U.S. leadership was not asked. It is impertinent to the fact of those poll results.

Mainly because you're not that bright and easily misled.

But at least I can tell a fact from an opinion.

Is it drafty in your cave today? Would sunlight help?; 11/14/10, 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Our guy is allowed to detain people indefinitely without trial because he's awesome and people love him.

Exactly.

This clown would support just about anything Obama does because, well, Obama is so smart, cool, educated, and "trustworthy, and stuff!; 11/14/10, 10:00 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: You are saying it is ok.

I offered no opinion on whether any of this was "ok" or not.

Read more. Talk less. It will help you. Eventually.; 11/14/10, 10:00 AM
mesquito said...: And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

Barry "Shortpants" Obama, June 2008; 11/14/10, 10:01 AM
Anonymous said...: What criteria people used to determine their approval of U.S. leadership was not asked.

Who cares?

Don't you find it interesting you independent thinking leftists always need poll results to validate your opinions?

Why do you think that is?; 11/14/10, 10:01 AM
Anonymous said...: I offered no opinion on whether any of this was "ok" or not.

Hysterical.

Yes, you are outraged by it all I'm sure!

When can hear you speaking out against it!; 11/14/10, 10:02 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Weird, wild stuff.

No weirder or more wild than Bush getting away with massive expansions of federal spending and Medicare. Your side has just as big a blind spot as does the left. They go with the guy, and let him get away with what he does because he's "on their side". That's the way it works, and only a blind partisan doesn't understand that.

I think those ragging on Obama for the same things Bush does should make a big huge blind spot their symbol.; 11/14/10, 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: But at least I can tell a fact from an opinion.

Actually you can't.

See this:America's standing has improved as a result of Obama's election. isn't a fact.

It is an opinion.

And opinion poll results don't make it a fact.

You can't grasp such an elemental concept.

Why?

You're not that bright and easily misled.

See stupid, if America's standing had actually improved, there would be more quantifiable criteria to prove this.

For example, we would have more countries assisting in Afghanistan.

For example, we would have more countries engaging in free-trade.

If American's standing in the world declined, why are there no countries that refused to accept foreign aid, refused to trade with us, refused our security guarantees?

Oh, because it made you feel good to vote for the black guy.

Nevermind.; 11/14/10, 10:07 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Don't you find it interesting you independent thinking leftists always need poll results to validate your opinions?

Don't you find it interesting that you dependent, groupthink followers on the right always need a fact to fight against so as to feel more energized and invigorated in your political struggles?

Of course you don't. You're too stupid to make that observation.; 11/14/10, 10:07 AM
Big Mike said...: Why not reach out to newly reddened America by saying Bush actually got it right and proceed with the military commissions?

ROFLMAO

Thanks for a hilarious start to the day. Coupling your post with this morning's suggestion in the Post that Obama do an LBJ and announce that he does not plan to run for a second term, I'm having a blast.; 11/14/10, 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: than Bush getting away with massive expansions of federal spending and Medicare.

I love how you type getting away with as if a) the Democrats didn't demand it and b) We all could have rushed the White House and ripped the pen out of his hand before he signed legislation.

You are clearly an idiot.; 11/14/10, 10:08 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: According to the secret "No access to Blogger profile" guy going by the cryptic name "JAY" (all caps in the original), poll results are not quantifiable.

How do all those awesome democratic reformers win elections in Afghanistan and Iraq without the quantifiable results of those polls at the ballot box, "JAY"?

What a waste of time.

wv: coldspit. lol!; 11/14/10, 10:10 AM
bagoh20 said...: "After all the bold talk in the campaign, Obama apparently has no idea what to do..."

Now you're getting it.; 11/14/10, 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: They go with the guy, and let him get away with what he does because he's "on their side".

Huh?

Bush wasn't up for re-election after he won a 2nd term.

You can grasp that, right?

I think those ragging on Obama for the same things Bush does

Who is doing that?

The spending Obama is engaging in is on a different level than what occurred under Bush.

That is a fact.; 11/14/10, 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: poll results are not quantifiable.

You can't read.

I'm shocked.; 11/14/10, 10:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't you find it interesting that you dependent, groupthink followers on the right

I love that.

You're projecting.

We're shocked.; 11/14/10, 10:13 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: JAY has hereby informed us that the Republicans controlling congress up until 2006 did not really agree with the decisions by Bush that they voted in agreement on to massively expand Medicare and federal debt. It was really the Democrats' fault. Somehow. Even though the Democrats lacked the numbers to make that happen.

This is the guy who's arguing about the importance of quantification.

Obviously, everyone else has bowed out for a reason. But JAY will continue to fight the good fight against idiocy, but without the help of numbers or facts. That's just his way.

He's a credit to your guys' cause, I think.; 11/14/10, 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: I think those ragging on Obama for the same things Bush does

I love how the whole point goes right by you.

I'll repeat. Obama is doing what Bush did and the left is not condemning it. You do understand that makes your criticisms of Bush invalid, right?; 11/14/10, 10:15 AM
Lincolntf said...: Do the somewhat sane Dems realize what this guy is all about yet? Something doesn't go from being the greatest moral issue of our time to being kicked down the road for the next guy by accident. He suckered you by getting you all lathered up in a righteous hatred of Bush, the military and Republicans in general just long enough so that you'd vote against your own self-interest. You've been rolled, and Obama is laughing all the way to the bank.; 11/14/10, 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Even though the Democrats lacked the numbers to make that happen.

Uh, I think you forgot the silly power sharing agreement in the senate and the fact that it takes 60 votes there.

But why would we expect you to address anything honestly?; 11/14/10, 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Consider yourself peed upon.

That's funny.

I'll consider the source.; 11/14/10, 10:18 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Medicare Part D is a federal program to subsidize the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. It was enacted as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) and went into effect on January 1, 2006."

JAY apparently doesn't realize that Bush's run for re-election in 2004 occurred after 2003.

Do tell me more about the importance of quantification, JAY. Does 2004 not come after 2003? Years are actually, you know, numbers.

Is this guy really the best that can be offered today? I feel like I'm pushing away a four-year old kid who's frenetically swinging away against my kneecaps with his little fists.; 11/14/10, 10:19 AM
Unknown said...: Agree with AllenS. As I said last night, a President is supposed to be vetted and experienced enough that his policies are more than just the current Lefty rant.

So I guess this means Gitmo doesn't close, after all.

Big Gov't Trickling Down on You said...

Global Perceptions of U.S. Leadership Improve in 2009

I think we've just discovered PB&J's latest nom de Net.; 11/14/10, 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: America's standing has improved as a result of Obama's election.

Uh-huh:

Obama can't get G-20 nations to follow his lead

But don't worry, there is an opinon poll from last year!!!

Again, Image over substance...; 11/14/10, 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...: JAY apparently doesn't realize that Bush's run for re-election in 2004 occurred after 2003.

Uh, yeah.

And Bush signed spending bills that were bad, and this one will cost more than a trillion which is awful.

But, Bush made compromises to get what he wanted on the war.

Alternatively, Obama had a large house majority and briefly a filibuster proof Senate.

And he tripled the deficit, didn't end DADT, Obama is arguing in court that is ok to detain people indefinitely without trial, and basically continued all of Bush's policies.

You can't grasp the difference.; 11/14/10, 10:30 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Tell me, dear JAY, of Sarah Palin's substance, or of Mitt Romney's substance. Tell me of Christine O'Donnell's "substance". No image behind those substantive leaders. None whatsoever. They don't need it! THEY'RE TOO GOOD FOR IT!!!; 11/14/10, 10:31 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: But, Bush made compromises to get what he wanted on the war.

Bush did everything he could to have a war, because as he put it, without a war he could not have a successful presidency.

It was about personal gain.; 11/14/10, 10:33 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Now that there is almost universal concensus that Obama is incompetent, these arguments seem a bit like we are piling on poor wittle POTUS.; 11/14/10, 10:36 AM
Lincolntf said...: "Mitt Romney's substance."

Created tens of thousands of private sector jobs, oversaw the creation and/or rescue of worldwide corporations producing millions of products and billions of dollars.

Rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics from scandal and insolvency.

Governor of Massachusetts.

Whatever one thinks of his politics, Mitt's substance is undeniable. He was running companies while Barry was still passing out pamphlets at the bus station.; 11/14/10, 10:45 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: I notice no one wishes to reject the claim that Bush sent thousands to their deaths for the sake of his own popularity. Does no one feel even the least bit uncomfortable with this assertion?

I'm just wondering, does this decision of his make Bush look more competent, in your eyes - seeing as how interested you are in denouncing Obama's incompetence as a leader?

Perhaps if Obama killed as many Americans or more as Bush did your perceptions would change.

It really is all about the victimology with you guys at this point, isn't it?; 11/14/10, 10:51 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: GM is profitable for the first time in 6 years, and, one assumes, creating products, saving jobs and the like. This, in the midst of a recession.

SO lincolntf, what do you think of Chief Executive Officer Barry Obama's competence in handling General Motors? Does it compare more favorably or less to Mitt Romney's?

And Obama's emulation of Romney's health care takeover in Massachusetts? Favorable or unfavorable?; 11/14/10, 10:56 AM
former law student said...: New Yorkers are wussies.; 11/14/10, 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't you find it interesting that you dependent, groupthink followers on the right

Uh-huh:

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) warned Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) of "disloyalty" to President Obama if she should seek to distance herself from the White House in her re-election campaign.

Cleaver, who's seen as the likely next leader of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), cautioned the centrist senator of distancing herself from Obama, the way many endangered incumbents had done in the closing weeks of the 2012* election.

“Any attempt to extricate herself from him will be an act of disloyalty,” Cleaver told McClatchy in a piece profiling McCaskill's re-election campaign. “She will not do that at all.”

That's the party you vote for. Such independent thinkers all...; 11/14/10, 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: because as he put it, without a war he could not have a successful presidency.

He said no such thing.

You are a propagandist and a liar.

I notice no one wishes to reject the claim that Bush sent thousands to their deaths for the sake of his own popularity.

You are a propagandist and a liar.

I do enjoy the fact you think you make substantive comments.; 11/14/10, 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Does no one feel even the least bit uncomfortable with this assertion?

Your assertions are those of an easily misled dupe.

Why would any be uncomfortable with the nonsense you're spewing?; 11/14/10, 11:04 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Maybe if he threatened her with death (like Bush and the Republicans do to the American people) then you would approve, JAY.

Glad to know you've been peeping into my ballot box. Apparently discerning the opinions of large numbers of adults across the world with open, direct questioning is mystifying, alchemy even. But you somehow know what was marked on every single one of my secret ballot votes, let alone in which elections I've even voted.

That's some feat, there. How do you do it, JAY?; 11/14/10, 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: what do you think of Chief Executive Officer Barry Obama's competence in handling General Motors?

Um, it shows he has no competence.

After all GM won't be paying the government back the money it received from the bailout.

Obama is feckless and you know nothing about economics since you're pretending that it is a good idea that Obama gave the money to GM.

Watching you beclown yourself is rather fun, however.; 11/14/10, 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: That's some feat, there. How do you do it, JAY?

It is quite clear who you vote for given the fact you are not that bright & easily misled.

Which is clear by the idiotic assertions you're making.; 11/14/10, 11:08 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Two years before the 9/11 attacks on America, George W. Bush told a Houston journalist if elected president, “I’m going to invade Iraq.”

Bush made the comments about starting an aggressive war to veteran Houston Chronicle reporter Mickey Herskowitz, then working with Bush on his book “A Charge To Keep,” later brought out by publisher William Morrow.

This disclosure was uncovered by Russ Baker, an award-winning investigative reporter when he interviewed Herskowitz for his own book, “Family of Secrets” (Bloomsbury Press) about the Bush dynasty. However, Baker says, when he approached The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times with the potentially devastating story to President Bush prior to the 2004 presidential election, they declined to publish it.

In a new book, “Media In Crisis”(Doukathsan), Baker quotes Herskowitz as telling him: “He (Bush) said he wanted to do it(invade Iraq), and the reason he wanted to do it is he had been led to understand that you could not really have a successful presidency unless you were seen as commander-in-chief, unless you were seen as waging a war.”

Bush told Herskowitz that his father (President George H.W. Bush) knew that from Panama and (President Ronald)Reagan knew that from Grenada and…(UK Prime Minister)Maggie Thatcher knew this from the Falklands.”

According to Baker, Bush told Herskowitz, “The ideal thing was a small war, and this is why Bush said nobody was going to be killed in Iraq because he thought it would be small war.”

Bush co-authored his book “A Charge To Keep” with Karen Hughes. In his introduction to the work, Bush wrote, “I thank Mickey Herskowitz for his help and work in getting the project started.”

"LIES!" says JAY.; 11/14/10, 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: and, one assumes, creating products, saving jobs and the like

That's funny.

Yes they "saved" jobs by receiving $50 billion in taxpayer dollars.

A sound investment to an economic illiterate.; 11/14/10, 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: According to Baker, Bush told Herskowitz,

Yes, because 3rd hand accounts = fact!!!

It is a big mystery who you vote for, clown!

I mean nobody, nobody could figure this out!

Again, you are not that bright & easily misled.; 11/14/10, 11:11 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Which is clear by the idiotic assertions you're making.

And which elections have I voted in, JAY, you trusty oracle of truth? I want years, voting precincts (don't forget local elections), results. What good an oracle of truth are you if you can't do that, you fucking bean counter!!! ;0

BTW, does 2004 still come before 2003, according to you? Just wondering.; 11/14/10, 11:12 AM
Lincolntf said...: Romney ran his companies without FREE MONEY. It's how the real world works and it's why President Obama is so completely at sea on economic issues. Clueless is too generous a term for his economic efforts.; 11/14/10, 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: "LIES!" says JAY.

Assertions are not fact.

An elemental point lost on you leftists.

feel like I'm pushing away a four-year old kid who's frenetically swinging away against my kneecaps with his little fists.

I love that.

Puff out your chest, little girl.

You're so smart.; 11/14/10, 11:13 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Again, you are not that bright & easily misled.

You mean, just like your hero and the standard-bearer for competence, George W. Bush:

Bush co-authored his book “A Charge To Keep” with Karen Hughes. In his introduction to the work, Bush wrote, “I thank Mickey Herskowitz for his help and work in getting the project started.”; 11/14/10, 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: JAY apparently doesn't realize that Bush's run for re-election in 2004 occurred after 2003.

Ah, so I guess the "logic" here is that since Bush wasn't primaries out, the Republicans can't criticize Obama on spending (even though it is orders of magnitude larger than under Bush).

So, I can't wait to see the left primary out, or otherwise vote against Obama.

Because if they fail to do this they are endorsing big spending, indefinite detention, killing of civilians, and all the rest.

See you in 2012!; 11/14/10, 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Bush wrote, “I thank Mickey Herskowitz for his help and work in getting the project started.”

And then what?

Oh, that makes the assertion you can't possibly prove, true!!!

You're so smart.; 11/14/10, 11:16 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: So, Mitt Romney didn't use any FREE money from his wealthy CEO father in financing his own riches, lincoln. Just want to make sure that's what you're trying to say. Thanks.; 11/14/10, 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: "After all the bold talk in the campaign, Obama apparently has no idea what to do with the detainees."

Bullshit.

Barack Obama knows precisely what the United States Constitution requires that we do with these detainees and that is to try them. He is a constitutional law professor. He cannot claim ignorance of his duty.

Barack Obama refuses to give these prisoners a fair trail because Barack Obama is a fucking dictator.

He is no longer a President.

He is our dictator.

No different than Nicolae Ceauşescu. We can only hope he meets the same fate.; 11/14/10, 11:27 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Because if they fail to do this they are endorsing big spending, indefinite detention, killing of civilians, and all the rest.

But I'm sure you're ok with all these things, JAY - seeing how the Republicans were ok with blocking bills cutting taxes and other economic relief prior to the midterms. It was for political gain and therefore worth the effort, no matter the costs to the American economy or anyone else.

Just like the outsourcing of jobs.

Come on, we all know that the Republican party is more important to you than America itself is. Just admit it. That's what you've been trying to say ever since you plunked your little sandbox down here this morning. Own up to it.; 11/14/10, 11:29 AM
Unknown said...: Big Gov't Trickling Down on You said...

Tell me, dear JAY, of Sarah Palin's substance

Taking on the corrupt RINO establishment in Alaska, running her own successful small business, mayor of the 5th largest city in Alaska and state governor, derailing The Zero healthcare with 2 words (death panels), and she's one of the few who has raised QE2 as a domestic political issue.

PB&J/Alex spreads the FUD Puffington, DU, and Kos write for him.; 11/14/10, 11:33 AM
former law student said...: New Yorkers have made it clear they don't want KSM tried in Lower Manhattan, mostly for security reasons, with business disruption cited as well.

One alternative would be to try KSM in a location that's highly secured already, such as the District of Columbia, or in the Pentagon itself.; 11/14/10, 12:02 PM
Michael said...: We could have used Gitmo if they hadn't closed it down.; 11/14/10, 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama? No words to describe this guy. Ah! I remember four words: Just words! Just speeches!; 11/14/10, 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...: The best alternative for KSM is to hang him. No wasted bullets—unless we can make his family pay for them. The guy has already admitted his guilt; what need for a trial? All that's needed is the judgment and his execution.; 11/14/10, 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "One alternative would be to try KSM in a location that's highly secured already, such as the District of Columbia, or in the Pentagon itself."

The other alternative, of course, is to give these people what George W. Bush was giving them: a fair trial. Right where they are ... at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

There is absolutely no need to set these fuckers loose in the United States.

Barack Obama illegally stopped the military tribunals that were occurring and is now not willing to give these prisoners a fair trial. I mean what the fuck?

When did we elect a fucking dictator who could stop trials and prevent fair trials from happening? Barack Obama is no longer a president ... he's a fucking Socialist Dictator and he should receive the same fate as all other dictators throughout history.

You're a former law student FLS ... under what provision of the Constitution does Barack Obama claim the power to deny people a fair trial?; 11/14/10, 2:25 PM
former law student said...: There is absolutely no need to set these fuckers loose in the United States.

New Ham's irrational fear shows that the terrorists have surely won.

We are the United States of America, my boy, not some Third World dictatorship with its kangaroo courts.; 11/14/10, 2:34 PM
mishu said...: Two years before the 9/11 attacks on America, George W. Bush told a Houston journalist if elected president, “I’m going to invade Iraq.”

Nice and italicized but I see no link. It's also hearsay. Try again.; 11/14/10, 2:47 PM
traditionalguy said...: The MSM tells a story line, that a few NYT SuperLiberals cling to, about providing civilian style presumptions of innocence during a War. But the large majority of Manhattan residents are still really seriously angry at the SOBs who pulled off the 9/11 sneak attack. Obama has reversed course because he decided he needs a few friends left on his side.; 11/14/10, 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: BG: Come back when you want to proceed to the adult version of this game.

In the adult version of the game, use of the ultimate petulant girly retort "you don't know me" is grounds for immediate and irrevocable disqualification.; 11/14/10, 3:00 PM
Roger J. said...: Mr Big used an expression favored by our erstwhile poster Jeremy/Luckyoldson/etc: "read more talk less.." Could it be the big is Jeremey/LOS redux? Just asking; 11/14/10, 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Ham asks: You're a former law student FLS ... under what provision of the Constitution does Barack Obama claim the power to deny people a fair trial?

fls responds: New Ham's irrational fear shows that the terrorists have surely won.

We are the United States of America, my boy, not some Third World dictatorship with its kangaroo courts.

I hope that clears things up for you, Ham.; 11/14/10, 3:08 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:Joe, America's standing has improved as a result of Obama's election. If he's allowed to get away with what Bush did because of his ability to gain greater trust from civil libertarians or the left, then tough cookies.

That must be as annoying to you as it is for other people to hear that W. was elected on the basis of people preferring to have a beer with him. Everyone's got their reasons for inane reasoning. Deal.

You keep defending this dumb poll from a year ago as if it actually meant anything, but lets assume you're correct. Now that Obama has basically ceded the detaining of the war on terror masterminds to Bush's default position wouldn't that effect Obama's poll numbers? Obama is supposedly better because he is counter to Bush and because he is competent and beause he will bring about world peace or what have you. Which is why he got a nobel prize. Only he hasn't exactly brought about world peace. Except eveyrtime he goes overseas the leaders play him for a rube. Only he is essentiall ceding the to Bush's default positions on the war on terror (I suppose next he's going to authorize waterboarding).
Is popular opinion based so little on Obama's actual experiences that things he does don't even factor into his favorability. Because if THAT'S the case, doesn't it say alot about the fickleness and absence of a moral center for libs (who are Obama's supporters). Seriously, it can't come down to it that the only reason libs didn't like Bush's notion to have KSM tried using a tribunal was because Bush suggested it.
I'd like to do a more current poll, and see if the majority of libs still think he is the change they were looking for.; 11/14/10, 3:13 PM
jr565 said...: Big Govt wrote

Bush did everything he could to have a war, because as he put it, without a war he could not have a successful presidency.

It was about personal gain.

Which war are you talking about? IRaq or Afghanistan? If Afghanistan, then you are essentially agreeing that Dems were lying about support of fighting the real war on terror. If Iraq, then explain why Bush was already fighting in Afghanistan. Surely, he already had a war, which would mean his presidency would be successful. Hence no need for starting a war for personal gain.; 11/14/10, 3:20 PM
jr565 said...: and if it was just about personal gain, surely the dems wouldn't have given him an authorization to go to war. What I don't get is how the UN and Clinton administration got into this too. Prior to Bush the UN sanctioned Iraq 15 times, on the justification that Iraq hadn't disarmed and was not cooperating. Were those votes based on personal gain. ANd when Clinton and the Congress passed the ILA (not to mention bombed and sanctioned Iraq) were those decisions similarly based on personal gain.
or are you agreeing that the assertions made by all were valid, but that Bush simply shouldn't have gone to war based on the same assertions. Then it wouldn't be an issue of Bush lying, but rather Bush going into a war that wasn't necessary (but based on the same rationale that would cause previous presidents to pass an ILA and the UN to pass 15 resolutions) However, in response to that Bush could simply argue, that before he got there the congress had passed the ILA and the UN had passed 15 resolutions and Iraq was still not in compliance. Thus, using the same rationale he could simply argue that everything but war had been tried unsuccessfully and Iraq was still in noncompliance thus a war was justified. I will note that now that the war has occured, Sadaam has been tried and removed, and the transition to democracy has continued apace (just as was envisioned way back in 1998). So, if Clinton and the UN had wanted to hold Iraq in compliance, you have to admit that Bush actually did a better job of it.; 11/14/10, 3:28 PM
Anonymous said...: "We are the United States of America, my boy, not some Third World dictatorship with its kangaroo courts."

At least they have courts.

In Barack Obama's dictatorship, you don't get your day in court. You don't get a fair trail. You get held in a gulag with no fucking due process.

Thanks for helping put a socialist dictator in power, FLS. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself that you supported this guy.

How can you sleep at night knowing this is the America you've left to your children? An America where a dictator-president can decide on a whim to cancel trials and prevent people getting their day in court.

Shame on you.

Shame.; 11/14/10, 3:52 PM
former law student said...: Why does Obama continue to cave into public opinion? The failure of Congress to support buying the Illinois superprison, the resistance to having KSM tried in Lower Manhattan, next to Ground Zero? Surely these cave-ins were not rewarded with voter support.

I con't know the answer.; 11/14/10, 4:00 PM
ken in tx said...: A few years ago, I was working on a doctorate at Clemson University. I remarked to one of my professors, a social science professor, that I would feel better if the data we were looking at was more objective. He looked at me with disbelief, and said “It's based on objective measures. People responded with quantitative measurements for 'agree', 'strongly agree', and 'disagree', and so forth. He thought that was objective. He thought subjective would be if responders wrote paragraphs about each question. To my mind, an objective measurement, was if an item was 25.4 mm, less that 25.4 mm, or more than 25.4 mm. Asking someone if they agree about it being 25.4 mm is not objective. It's B.S. And it's what they do in social science. And that's what going on here too about surveys being quantitative.; 11/14/10, 4:16 PM
Unknown said...: I think you see here an example of an old adage: leftists have causes, not principles. Civilian trials was a cause the Left embraced when it served their purposes. They abandon it now because it no longer serves their purposes. There is no underlying principle, hence no contradiction.

Having "principles" slows down "progress" according to "progressives."; 11/14/10, 4:43 PM
george said...: The funniest thing about all of this is that Hillary and the other adult Dems knew they just made this whole "fierce moral urgency" meme up out of whole cloth to excite the rubes in the base. But like Frankenstein's monster it got out of control. Obama was the only candidate naive and illogical enough to believe it so he reaped the rewards. Lefties aren't bright but they can spot a true believer a mile away.

Everyone knew that illegal combatants weren't going to be tried in a civilian court. It was neither a moral nor a practical way of waging war for reasons that are obvious if one has even a little common sense or knowledge of history. Unfortunately for us all Obama had neither of those two qualities.; 11/14/10, 5:47 PM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/14/10, 5:53 PM
Fen said...: I think you see here an example of an old adage: leftists have causes, not principles

Agreed. You'll note that none of our resident Libtards here have made any of the strong arguments they made when Bush was in office.

The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about.

Notice how many of them are scrambling to get vouchers exempting them from Obamacare?; 11/14/10, 5:54 PM
former law student said...: Civilian trials was a cause the Left embraced when it served their purposes. They abandon it now because it no longer serves their purposes.

Ah. You took the National Review's
interpretation of Bloomberg's interpretation of the WaPo's reading of the administration's tea leaves at face value:

The Washington Post today reported that the Obama administration has given up on any hope of prosecuting Khalid Sheihk Mohammed in Lower Manhattan.

Does not mean no federal court trial of KSM anywhere, ever.

As I read the tea leaves the Obama administration is hoping opposition minds will change once the Ghailani trial reaches a verdict.; 11/14/10, 6:21 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: As I read the tea leaves the Obama administration is hoping opposition minds will change once the Ghailani trial reaches a verdict.

You really are unbelievably naive. Even after Obama leaves office in 2013 or 2017 with KSM still in Guantanamo you'll still be believing that he really cares about your little pet issue but just hasn't been able to get to it yet.

Listen - Obama doesn't give a toss about the legal rights of KSM or any of the detainees. He. Does. Not. Care.; 11/14/10, 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: " ...opposition minds"

Which minds are these, exactly?

Nobody that I've heard of on the right side of the aisle supports the denial of trials for these terrorists.

Trials were in fact under way. Obama stopped them. Hmmm. Wonder why he did that?

What Americans support is giving these people their day in court where they sit - at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they are impotent to hurt any other Americans other than the 3,000 killed on September 11, 2001.

What Obama wants is to bring KSM to New York for a show trial so that he and his Islamist supporters can parade the terrorist about as their martyr.

Denied this by a sensible Congress, Barack Obama the dictator has decided to deny the terrorists a fair trial because he knows they would be convicted of their crimes and then hanged as war criminals.

As long as there is no trial, Obama knows there can be no sentence.

The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is protecting these terrorists from being tried and sentenced in the hope that they will one day be freed so that they can kill some more Americans.

Because he hates Americans.; 11/14/10, 6:48 PM
former law student said...: Trials were in fact under way. Obama stopped them. Hmmm. Wonder why he did that?

Principle over expediency.

Amazing how the proponents of American exceptionalism want to reduce our country to the lowest standard possible.

What do the New Hams think our country stands for? Why did so many of our forebears fight and die? To keep the maximum marginal income tax rate below 34%?; 11/14/10, 7:11 PM
jr565 said...: Former law student wrote:"
Amazing how the proponents of American exceptionalism want to reduce our country to the lowest standard possible.

No, we just don't think your side has any principles beyond saying antyhing to get your guy elected.; 11/14/10, 7:16 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: A fembot avatar said:

use of the ultimate petulant girly retort "you don't know me" is grounds for immediate and irrevocable disqualification.

So, what are you saying? That JAY knows me as intimately as you think he must know you?

What makes you retrogrades think you know so much about each other, or about anyone else? What gives? Are y'all having orgies every night? Are y'all holding hands and regularly holding get-togethers and singing kumbaya?; 11/14/10, 7:17 PM
Micha Elyi said...: Had ideas, but they encountered reality.

Hey, with that pitch Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown beat Meg Whitman in California.

wv: whedle; 11/14/10, 8:13 PM
Caroline said...: If he's allowed to get away with what Bush did because of his ability to gain greater trust from civil libertarians or the left, then tough cookies.

And it's analogous to Bush getting away with massive expansions of government - (spending, Medicare) - because he had cred with the right and the fundies. No big secret here.

Depends on how you define "got away with".

What did Bush get away with? He lost a lot of conservatives and fiscally conservative independents due to his expansion of govt. Google "porkbusters" One link as an example . He lost the House and Senate in 2006. Why do you think his approval ratings were so low? He pissed off more than just liberals.

Likewise, Obama has lost credibility over his (mis)handling of the Guantanamo detainees. Spin it all you want, it won't change what everyone knows: the guy has no idea what to do about Guantanamo.; 11/14/10, 8:32 PM
Cedarford said...: ThreeSheets said...
Wow. Between civilian trials or military tribunals who knew Obama would find something worse, no trial.

Progressive heads must be exploding.

Great comment. Best appreciated when the mental son of Jimmy Carter, Jr has to explain on 9/11/2011 why he and other progressive idealogues "rescued" the 9/11 mastermind from his guilty plea before a military tribunal - for no trial at all!!
Can't wait for that one!
-------------
Big Gov't Trickling Down on You said...
So, Mitt Romney didn't use any FREE money from his wealthy CEO father in financing his own riches, lincoln. Just want to make sure that's what you're trying to say. Thanks.
--------------
Romney's Dad was a CEO in pre-Reagan days, when CEOs only made 20 times the average worker's pay, vs. 500 times as much. And George Romney famously sent back 2/3rds of his salary the Board of American Motors authorized, saying 1/3rd salary was what he was fairly worth.

By the time Mitt Romney was 35, he had more net worth than his old man and he hadn't taken a dime from his Dad from his side business ventures while at McKinsey then his Bain Capital VC start.
And told his Dad not to give him one cent in inheritance. Offered to give his folks some nice things in their later years like a cruise around the world - which was in turn refused by them as too extravagent.

All in all, a pretty admirable family, no matter what you think about Mitt Romney's authenticity, secret underwear, or woodiness.

Reps screwed up not nominating him.
Dems screwed up not nominating Hillary.; 11/14/10, 9:07 PM
Anthony said...: What no "They told me if I voted for McCain" jokes? Or has that simply become so self evident that no one feels the need to make it anymore?; 11/15/10, 3:45 AM