SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (481422)5/17/2009 10:24:40 AM
From: bentway2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1590108
 
"This is what you guys are creating with the Pelosi thing... but you just can't help yourselves, can you?"

When the revelations start raining down about what Rumsfeld and Cheney were up to, which is starting to smell like war profiteering on a war THEY started for that purpose while bamboozling a weak and not-too-smart W, the (R)'s will go right back to their babylike whining. Forgetting completely that they initiated the entire process.



To: Road Walker who wrote (481422)5/17/2009 10:29:38 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1590108
 
Dick Cheney, ASYMMETRIC Threat

STANDARD BLOG
By Michael Goldfarb

When the Obama White House authorized the release of the so-called torture memos, the Washington Post report noted that the release was, at least in part, a response to criticism from the former VP, Dick Cheney:

>>> A source familiar with White House views said Obama's advisers are further convinced that letting the public know exactly what the past administration sanctioned will undermine what they see as former vice president Richard B. Cheney's effort to "box Obama in" by claiming that the executive order heightened the risk of a terrorist attack.<<<

For weeks now Democrats -- particularly the DNC -- have been embracing Cheney's high-profile attacks and pointing to his low public approval numbers as evidence that the strategy would backfire. Left-wing blogs happily echoed the party's message and amplified every statement Cheney made on the assumption that Cheney's support for a policy would be toxic, and public support for that position would necessarily erode.

Well, it didn't happen like that. Cheney had boxed Obama in, and the aggressive response from Democrats inside the administration and out has only made the box tighter. Even now, Cheney's unapologetic and strident defense of the Bush administration's interrogation tactics is driving the left to ever more preposterous arguments not against torture, but in defense of the very terrorists subjected to those tactics. Andrew Sullivan writes today that the "Bush-Cheney administration pesided over the worst attack on US soil in history and failed to capture or bring to justice any of its perpetrators." Is it possible that Sullivan has become so deluded as to believe that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, whose rough treatment Sullivan has obsessed on for months now, is a victim and not a perpetrator, indeed the mastermind, of that horrible attack?

Some liberals are starting to catch on. Mike Madden describes today how Cheney set the torture trap and snared not just Obama but also the once untouchable Speaker of the House. Madden perhaps gives Cheney too much credit, but at least he's dispensed with the notion that Cheney is somehow dragging the Republican party down. It's Democrats who are getting tripped up as they try and fend off his attacks.

Pelosi has beaten a hasty retreat from her 24 hour war with the CIA.
She now wants to "move forward," which echoes President Obama's own language whenever the left tries to push him towards some kind of investigation or truth commission. The White House refused to release photos that the left believes would have further demonstrated the abuses of the Bush administration. It's hard to imagine that the intense backlash to the release of the memos didn't play some part in that decision. And now the White House is moving to revive military commissions and indefinite detention. It's an acknowledgment that the Bush-Cheney way of war is not only legitimate, it's inescapable.

Things might have played out very differently if Cheney had kept quiet, but the Democrats were all screaming 'bring it on.' It turns out Cheney is an ASYMMETRIC threat they were unprepared for and for which they still have no counter. Despite his low public approval numbers, he's jammed up a popular president and a powerful speaker with little help from the party or the press. He is, as the boss writes in this week's editorial, the most potent weapon Republicans have right now.

weeklystandard.com



To: Road Walker who wrote (481422)5/17/2009 10:33:25 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1590108
 
Cheney's torture trap for Democrats

AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 14, 2009.

You might have thought getting torture back in the news would be a bad move for any Republican; after all, it was the Bush administration that authorized the torturing. But the last few days have shown Dick Cheney knew exactly what he was doing when he went on TV last week and started talking about "enhanced interrogation": It was a masterstroke of bureaucratic warfare.

Because just five days after Cheney admitted that George W. Bush personally signed off on the CIA's plans to extract information out of detainees by no matter how they got it, the debate in Washington isn't even remotely focused on the ethical and moral repugnance of torturing your enemies. Instead, the city is buzzing about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about waterboarding. There's a little side conversation going about whether torture is effective -- but not whether it's wrong. And the Obama administration, which is trying desperately not to get involved in an endless battle over what Bush officials were doing behind closed doors, is getting dragged into it, too, and infuriating liberal supporters in the process.

Pelosi gets most of the blame for her own problems. No one forced her into giving a disastrous news conference Thursday, where she essentially picked a fight with the CIA, . (Though Cheney would have known, from watching the agency leak furiously to get back at Bush officials who crossed it, that if he could provoke any Democrat into a battle with spies, it would be a win for the GOP.) The speaker said the agency was lying about what they had told her in 2002 about interrogations, though she also acknowledged that the administration said they had opinions that might allow "enhanced techniques" to be used, and she claimed the CIA lied to Congress all the time during the Bush administration. But asked if she wished she had done more to object to whatever she was told, she demurred. "No letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do," she said. "My job was to change the majority in Congress and to fight to have a new president."

Even Democrats said privately afterwards that Pelosi had stumbled. Her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, had already said earlier in the week that "the facts need to be on the table" about what Pelosi and others in Congress knew about torture, but by Thursday, he was trying to brush the whole issue off as a distraction. Former Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who was the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee in 2002, said the CIA's record of the briefings they gave Congress was inaccurate. But he could only indirectly defend Pelosi, since he didn't have written records of what the agency told lawmakers.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who tends to stray from the Democratic fold on matters of national security, decided this was a good moment to freelance again, telling MSNBC on Thursday that he "totally disagreed" with her. Today, CIA director Leon Panetta -- who served in California's delegation to the House with Pelosi years ago -- felt compelled to write a memo Friday to agency employees pushing back against her. "Let me be clear," Panetta wrote. "It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress."

Republicans, meanwhile, were gleeful. House GOP boss John Boehner -- who wasn't in the briefings, and supports "enhanced interrogation" anyway, meaning he can throw stones at Pelosi without fear of breaking his own glass house -- said Thursday Pelosi had no standing to call for investigations of the Bush administration if she knew about the torture policies. "They were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were," Boehner said. "They were well aware that they had been used. And it seems to me that they want to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways." Republican aides said they'd happily go out and talk about Pelosi every day if Democrats contine to raise the idea of a commission to investigate torture. By Friday, the partisan bickering had descended into open warfare. Rep. Steve King, a rabid right-wing Republican from Iowa, told Fox News Pelosi was "an enemy of national security" and should resign her post.

And just like that, barely 48 hours after a former FBI agent told Congress the torture programs hurt intelligence gathering, the story was rapidly becoming yet another Washington political mess. Obama -- who had already disappointed supporters by seeming to rule out prosecutions for the Bush officials who authorized torture -- burned more good will with his own base by refusing to release new photos of detainee abuse. Now House Democrats, who could have most easily pushed the administration into going along with some kind of investigation, have problems of their own.

Cheney, safely ensconced in his McLean, Va., mansion, must be chortling all the way to his cave every night. After three decades in the top levels of U.S. government, he knows better than most how to set his opponents against themselves.


? Mike Madden

salon.com



To: Road Walker who wrote (481422)5/17/2009 11:49:54 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1590108
 
I used to agree with President Obama, that it was better to keep moving and focus on our myriad problems than wallow in the darkness of the past. But now I want a full accounting. I want to know every awful act committed in the name of self-defense and patriotism. Even if it only makes one ambitious congresswoman pay more attention in some future briefing about some future secret technique that is “uniquely” designed to protect us, it will be worth it.

Every "awful" act is already known and the American public totally supports them. Over half of people support the waterboarding, even if you call it "torture", even though it is 6-7 years in the past, even though the context has been conveniently omitted by the liberals.

What is important here is that the Speaker of the House is a liar. A Richard Nixon liar.

Obama started this shit. I think he's going to have swallow hard and watch it play out.

Besides, he'd love to be rid of that dirtbag Pelosi anyway. She is going to end up stepping down.



To: Road Walker who wrote (481422)5/17/2009 11:57:39 AM
From: tejek2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1590108
 
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HUNTSMAN'S MOVE....

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) was supposed to be spending quite a bit more time in New Hampshire and Iowa, not Beijing. And yet, Huntsman appears to have scrapped his 2012 plans to give up his governorship and become President Obama's U.S. Ambassador to China.

I was speaking earlier with Michael Cohen via email, and he compared Huntsman's move to Arlen Specter's party switch.

"Specter is a hack who switched parties for his own cynical reasons -- but for a guy like Huntsman in a safe state with a bright political future to basically say, 'To hell with the GOP. I'll spend a few years carrying water for a Democratic President' ... well, it just speaks volumes.

"Not only does it suggest that the GOP is alienating non-dogmatic conservative politicians, but it suggests that Huntsman basically considers the Republican Party, in the near-term, a lost cause. This is the kind of guy who could move Republicans to a more sensible middle ground and he doesn't seem to have any interest at all. It's the political equivalent (sort of) of Bill Clinton joining the Bush Administration in 1989."

That sounds right to me. Huntsman has clearly been eyeing the 2012 Republican presidential race -- he brought on John Weaver as a leading advisor for a reason -- and even leading Dems like David Plouffe saw him as a pol to watch. Now, however, he's not only giving up his job to serve overseas, he's doing so for a Democratic president. "Rising stars" in Republican politics just don't do this very often.

Seeing Huntsman alongside President Obama this morning at the White House, I kept thinking about an incident from a couple of weeks ago. Huntsman had scheduled several campaign-style stops in Michigan, apparently to help lay the groundwork for future support. Republican leaders in one key Michigan county abruptly withdrew Huntsman's invitation, however, when local officials learned that the Utah governor had the nerve to support civil unions for gay couples.

"The voters want and expect us to stand on principle and return to our roots," the local chairwoman of the GOP said. "Unfortunately, by holding an event with Gov. Huntsman, we would be doing the exact opposite."

It was a ridiculous move, of course, but it also sent a signal to Huntsman about the level of maturity in his party -- or in this case, the lack thereof. It's certainly possible the response from this county and other GOP activists made clear to Huntsman that it's not worth even trying to take the lead in the party, at least not in the near future.

So, for now he's teaming up with Obama, perhaps wondering if Republicans will have grown up by 2016.



To: Road Walker who wrote (481422)5/17/2009 11:58:00 AM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1590108
 
"Dick Cheney has done many dastardly things"

that's as far as I got, I see Dowd is still insane.