@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice---Here is what Obama said to the troops in Iraq.
quote:
"WE sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime and you got the job done. WE kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a government and you got the job done. And WE will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life..."
NOTE LONE VOICE, THAT THE "WE" OBAMA IS TALKING ABOUT WAS USUALLY NAMED AS 'BUSH' BEFORE THE ELECTION.
Lone Voice--General McKiernan, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan said that we would be in Afghanistan for AT LEAST THREE TO FIVE YEARS MORE. AT LEAST.
Didn't the left wing mention a "quagmire" after we were in Iraq two years?
Obama will keep our troops in Afghanistan how long?????
Previous • Post: # 3,585,699 • Next genoves
1 Reply report Sat 28 Feb, 2009 01:43 am Lone Voice--Here's what a "left wing" site has to say about Obama's turnaround on Wiretapping and Torture>
Bush III: Obama on Torture & Wiretapping
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Just as President Bush publicly and repeatedly stated that “this nation does not torture,” but then secretly engaged in torture, President Obama’s public rhetoric against torture is increasingly at odds with his decisons to defend John Yoo (the former Justice Department official who authored the "torture memo" justifying Bush administration policy), keep in place policies that have protected torture, and even keep in office Bush-era appointees who helped establish torture policies.
Obama made a public spectacle of signing the executive orders banning torture and closing Guantanamo within a year. Flanked by a dozen former generals, the public show contrasted with Obama’s quiet signing of an order overturning the “Mexico City policy” banning the funding of abortion providers abroad with U.S. foreign aid funds.
But for the second time in a week, the Obama administration maintained the “state secrets” defense the Bush administration used to shield torturers and other illegal activities from court scrutiny. This time the “state secrets” gambit protected warrantless (i.e., unconstitutional) wiretapping of terrorist suspects in San Francisco U.S. District Court on February 11.
“They have drawn a line in the sand between the executive and the judiciary, saying, 'You do not control these documents, we do,’ " said Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which filed the suit against warrantless wiretapping. The Obama administration’s assertion of the phony “state secrets” privilege strikes at the heart of the Constitution and justice system. Eisenberg is right in that if courts cannot get at the facts, they cannot decide justly. And if the executive branch can cover up crimes against the Constitution (as warrantless wiretaps are) by keeping all of the facts secret, then the court system itself becomes corrupted and irrelevant.
The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation charged in the lawsuit that the U.S. government unconstitutionally wiretapped them. The irony of the “state secrets” argument in this case is that the federal government accidentally faxed a document to the foundation in 2005 proving it had been wiretapping the organization without a warrant before it had listed the organization as linked to terrorism. The organization seeks the document so that it can be submitted to the court as evidence " something the Obama administration does not want to do because it would supposedly jeopardize national security.
Here’s the irony of the case: the Obama administration is essentially saying that even though organizations designated as terrorist have already had lengthy access to the document, it would jeopardize national security to allow U.S. district judges and lawyers to see the document as well. Imagine that. Terrorists can see our memoranda, but judges cannot. Such is the official Obama policy these days.
The same day that the Obama administration issued its second “state secrets” argument in federal court, the ACLU released copies of previously classified documents where Defense Department investigators admitted several detainees had been tortured to death. Most of the deaths occurred at the infamous secret prison at Bagram Air Force in Afghanistan, the site of most other publicized torture deaths.
Obama’s presidency started out on a positive note regarding the subject of torture, with executive orders commanding executive branch employees (including the CIA) not to commit felony torture. But his actions since that time tend to indicate that we may witness another term of lawless Bush administration policy. Americans have a clear choice of demanding their officials live under the chains of the Constitution or groveling under the dictatorial “leadership principle” where whatever the president says is law is legal. Obama's recent embrace of "state secrets" policy suggests he's a move in the latter direction.
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:Where is the outcry?
I seem to recall a whole bunch of you calling for Bush's impeachment, trial in front of the International Court, and a whole host of other demands for the US staying in Iraq and for the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
In fact, one couldn't watch the evening news without seeing a Code Pink protest.
Now that Obama is the murderer, where are you guys?
Gosh, what happened? Suddenly, there seems to be a realization that stuff happens in war? That there are no easy answers?
Or maybe it is just simply liberal politics...
I heard a talk show on NPR about a week ago (I think it was On Point, but that could be wrong). That show was the first I'd ever heard of Code Pink.
I can assure you they are NOT happy with Obama continuing to fight al-Qa'ida.
I don't know if they are always like that or if they were just off their meds for the show, but they were a little scary.
