Lest we be charged with simply bashing the president because of who he is (alas, not that any degree of deference will disuade the true Obamaphiles from making that accusation), two* full-throated cheers to the president for his latest move of sober and responsible action in the War On Terror. You do remember there’s a war on, right?
The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause “exceptional harm to national security” by exposing intelligence sources and methods.
The president deserves credit here. And we, as conservatives who are serious about protecting America from terrorist attacks (especially those that have roots here within our own borders) should be willing to congratulate him on this good move. Ronald Reagan is commonly credited with believing that it’s amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets credit. Well I for one am glad to give Obama and Holder (shiver) credit here, where it’s due. Thank you, President Obama, for ignoring the hysterics of the radical Left, and doing your job: Protecting America.
*(Only two cheers, because as the Journal suggests, it’s likely Holder released the anti-Bush bait that he did this week specifically to draw the attention of the jackals away from this wise policy. So much for ignoring the hysterics of the radical Left. Nevertheless, maybe he deserves credit for knowing that such a move would be required in order to get away with it. On the other hand, sounds kind of, how do you say? Cynical?)
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HQ
I also applaud Obama for reversing the Bush order on allowing Mexican Truckers into the USA. But there is not much else to praise him for.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day,
Wish he would have been wise on the subject when Bush was president.
Gotta grab ankles for the Teamsters.
I get the feeling that with the Obama administration, no one is piloting the ship. It’s a free-for-all with Hillary, Pelosi, Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Geithner / Goldman Sachs / the Fed, the Pentagon and the CIA each pursuing their interests and views. It’s inevitable that, in such an administration, some good moves will be made along with all those bad moves.
Glad to see that Barry’s team isn’t impervious to facts. Good for them. Ditto on keeping Gitmo open for now, for defending wiretap surveillance of terrorists, &c.
Now, let’s see what gillie, Kevin, et al think about this.
#6: “Now, let’s see what gillie, Kevin, et al think about this.”
cricket…cricket…cricket…
As long as wiretapping US citizen’s private conversations is done through FISA rules, I don’t think you will find much complaints.
What many on the left fear is “inter arma enim silent leges,” (DS9 anyone?)
And many have criticized Obama on that in the past
Since we are praising Obama, how come I have not heard any kudos thrown his way over the tax cuts? Isn’t that red meat to you folks?
Gay conservatives? What an oxymoron!
Gays took it up theirs with conservatives. Guess dumb folks never know that they are dumb!
There is no such thing as conservative or religious values.
You can @#$!’ing betcha that the vatican folks touch themselves just as much as you, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich or I do! 🙂
girlie:
If by tax cut, you mean the $65 a month (for a family of four that is), nice try.
Given what it takes to recover from recession (um, marginal tax cuts, anybody?), piddly toss-outs from the government (um, $500 “stimulus checks”, anybody?) are about as useful as tits of a bull. Gasp! Am I criticizing Bush? Yes, and many of us did at the time, too.
Check the history books–scratch that, they’d never mention something like this…check the actual history–marginal tax cuts are what revive an economy. Worked for JFK, worked for Reagan, worked for W.
What doesn’t work? Pissing money away on government programs.
Dammit, you’ve done it to me. I was all about praising Obama for a good move, then one of His minions had to bring up how truly incompetent He is, and you’ve ruined my enitire night!
Oh well, back to the sauce…
Woops…I should read my comments before I click the button. No offense, gillie…type-o.
Oh, but that gives me an opportunity, since you did come around. I’ve been gone for a while. Can you please pass along the link to the comment in which you were similarly circumspect about Bush’s wiretapping policies? You know, kinda gave him the benefit of the doubt and all, like you’re doing for The One now.
Or for that matter, any proof that Bush’s were not “done through FISA rules”.
Thanks!
#8: “Since we are praising Obama, how come I have not heard any kudos thrown his way over the tax cuts? Isn’t that red meat to you folks?”
gillie, show me a legitimate tax cut designed to return to taxpayers the money that they worked for and/or stimulate the economy and I’ll praise it. There is absolutely NOTHING in Obama’s gazillion dollar economic plan that comes even close to that. And by the way, just so we’re clear, those credits that Obama has lined up for all of the losers who can’t manage to earn enough money to pay a single dime in taxes don’t count. I realize Obama is doing everything he can to distort the actual meaning of the expression “tax cut” to include his bullsh*t “credits,” but those aren’t “tax cuts” and never will be. Those allocations are called “welfare” (at least until the media calls them “tax cuts” enough times at the direction of the Obama Administration until the real definition just fades away forever–say in about 18 months or so).
Fixed it for ya.
#8: “As long as wiretapping US citizen’s private conversations is done through FISA rules, I don’t think you will find much complaints. What many on the left fear is “inter arma enim silent leges,†(DS9 anyone?) And many have criticized Obama on that in the past”
You’re ducking the question, gillie. Or, you didn’t read the linked story and don’t know what the precise issue is. The assertion of Presidential authority made by the Obama Justice Department on national security grounds is so broad that it can be used to preclude public access to records that will show whether FISA rules were followed or not. So, essentially Obama has kept the FISA program, but granted himself exclusive authority to withhold/seal documents that would show compliance or noncompliance with FISA in wiretapping cases. So, there’s basically no way to verify that the Obama Justice Department is following FISA rules, or ignoring them.
Personally, I don’t really have a problem with that because I am fine with the executive asserting a national security privilege in narrow, limited circumstances. What bugs me is that whenever Bush asserted the privilege, it was presumptively assumed by liberals and the MSM that anything withheld, was kept secret because it would necessarily prove draconian violations of the Constitution (naturally). Conversely, Obama enjoys the opposite presumption–that anything he holds back is kept secret for the good of the nation and well,…he’s Obama for godsakes. He would never DREAM of exceeding the boundaries of federal law or violating the Constitution, right? Obama gets the benefit of the doubt. Bush is accused of evil, satanic plots, human experimentation, and forcing dogs and cats to live together. Same old double standard.
Filtered again. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Filtered again. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.
…# 10.comment.
(um, $500 “stimulus checksâ€, anybody?) Where ?
I’ve been going to my mail box for weeks now, and have yet to be stimulated ! If I want to be stimulated I’ll go to my bedroom turn down the lights and do what buoys do…but girls don’t talk about.
” Wheres the Beef ? “
You don’t even get it. What Bush argued (and the courts upheld), which is what Obama is continuing to argue is that the powers in question are Constitutional and as such cannot be limited by judges, FISA or any other statute. Of course liberals never got it.
Obama is saying, “f*ck FISA! I’m the president!”…where’s your intellectually consistent outrage?
Bush was right. Conservatives were right. Obama is right (now). The courts have confirmed it (several times) And libtards and Obama (during the campaign) were flat wrong.
Hey, GP, I thought you should know that it’s probably a good time to close this comment thread because there have been new developments rendering the issue of whether Obama deserves “credit” for retaining the FISA program completely MOOT.
Here, all of us have been naively discussing Obama and the wiretap program designed to track down our enemies, but it really makes no difference because Obama has no intention of spying on suspected terrorists. Instead, he plans to “reach out” to them. “Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?hp
That’s right, folks. Obama apparently is thinking that a diplomatic approach with “moderate elements of the Taliban” would be a better plan for winning in Afghanistan. I mean, I don’t know about all of you, but the FIRST thing I think of when I hear the word “Taliban” is moderate. They are an eminently reasonable bunch, as their actions in 1998 certainly confirm:
“The worst attack on civilians came in summer of 1998 when the Taliban swept north from Herat to the predominantly Hazara and Uzbek city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the largest city in the north. Entering at 10 am on 8 August 1998, for the next two days the Taliban drove their pickup trucks ‘up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved — shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys.’ More than 8000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan. Contrary to the injunctions of Islam, which demands immediate burial, the Taliban forbade anyone to bury the corpses for the first six days while they rotted in the summer heat and were eaten by dogs.” (Wikipedia)
Yes, I know. It sounds like they have a few rowdy upstarts in the group, but Obama isn’t going to deal with THAT element of the Taliban–only the MODERATES in that charming organization. Plus, they killed those 8000 people and left them in the streets to rot and be eaten by dogs like what? Ten years ago! I’m sure they’re not like that anymore. There’s no word yet on where or how the White House plans to find these Taliban moderates to negotiate with, but they can probably round up the whole gang and just ask for a show of hands. Then they could probably get the whole thing resolved by dinnertime. What could possibly go wrong?
How am I giving Obama the benefit of the doubt? The case is NOT about continuing FISA-less wiretapping. Its about whether a judge can force the executive branch to turn over documents to lawyers of the accused. Or another way, its about whether Judges can oversea the distribution of all classified documents. The court has already reviewed these docs and determined that indeed they are state secrets. Now if Obama had said that the judges have no right to review the classified documents in the first place, that would be another story. But that is not the case.
So it’s pretty disingenuous to claim that going around FISA based on this case. And its not accurate to say that Obama is allowing warrantless wiretapping to continue. So if anything you, Sean A, WSJ are reading too much into this case.
AE – how is he is say ing f— FISA? The courts saw the docs and said yup these are state secrets?
Second – To ask for a link on how Bush broke the FISA law is like asking for a link to prove Clinton committed adultery. However , this is a good sum up of how Bush broke the law:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm
But basically its this:
Due to that pesky constitution to legally search someone the gov needs a warrant. Congress made a law making it very easy to get a warrant (even retroactively)
Bush said, I don’t have time for that and searched people anyway. Clearly that is not leagal He then said its OK because in times of war there is no law. (to paraphrase of course)
Third – I thought any tax cut was good tax cut.
4th – no problem about the typo. I have been called worse!
Is it just me, or have others noticed that the Obamaniacs are not lining up to support him as they did before Nov 4, 2008?
Even here, the usual liberal retort is: “Bush left him the mess”
But no messages of SUPPORT for Barry The One.
Curious….. (and developing story, I’m sure)
It’s amazing we actually have to congratulate democrats when they don’t sell US interests out. Positive reinforcement I guess. But the bar is set so low for them, yet they constantly trip over it like some parody on the Monty Python show (moderate Taliban, caving into Cuba, heart to hearts with Hezbollah, shafting PM Brown).
I have been trying to post a comment all morning about this, but can’t get it past the filter so I’ll just cut to the chase. All of this discussion of FISA and whether Obama deserves our praise is a totally irrelevant distraction. Why should we debate the minutiae of Obama’s FISA position when he clearly has no intention of spying on or tracking our enemies? This morning the NYT is reporting that Obama is considering “reaching out” to the “moderate element of the Taliban” in Afghanistan. That’s right. He’s seriously looking at negotiating with our enemies, who are, by the way vile, genocidal, mass-murdering serial killers. Even using the word “Taliban” and “moderate” in the same sentence is an obscene joke. Read it and weep:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1&hp
So why debate FISA at all? Obama is not going to wiretap our enemies. He wants to coddle them, negotiate with them, appease them, legitimize them, and treat them like fu*king diplomats. There is only one solution when it comes to the Taliban. Total extinction. That is true no matter what Obama decides to do instead. He’s just well on his way to ensuring that more people will be killed in the end.
I’m sure they would if they had any idea how. Given that they voted for a guy they knew nothing about, I’m sure it’s difficult to support that on any meaningful level.
Don’t get it wrong. Obama continuing Bush’s policies doesn’t vindicate the former President nor does it excuse his crimes. Obama is just as wrong as George Bush. You don’t judge right and wrong based on who did this or who said that, you judge it against the rule of law.
Levi,
The “rule of law” is NOT “law according to my political views.” (Unless, of course, the courts are totally packed with liberals.)
You, Levi, would be addressed by the great Daffy Duck thusly: “It is to laugh.”
Gillie,
Like this…
Not only is he saying FISA cannot restrict his constitutional powers, he is saying neither can the courts. The fact that a court agreed with him doesn’t change the fact that he is saying f* you. You don’t have the authority.
The same exact argument libtards were apoplectic over when Bush made it. Mainly because you are ignorant of the Constitution and believe a law can supersede presidential powers. Congress and the courts can no more limit the Presidents powers to wiretap our enemies than the president can alter the powers of the courts or congress with an executive order.
Although I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Obama tries it.
The same exact argument libtards were apoplectic over when Bush made it. Mainly because you are ignorant of the Constitution and believe a law can supersede presidential powers. Congress and the courts can no more limit the Presidents powers to wiretap our enemies than the president can alter the powers of the courts or congress with an executive order.
Wow, there isn’t a single thing even remotely close to correct in this paragraph.
“A law enacted by the legislature is more important and takes precedence over a public referendum that eliminates rights for people, yes, yes, a million times yes.â€
“Yes, some parts of the document are more important than others, and yes, men in black robes get to decide.â€
“Just because you got that into the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s locked in for all time, that it’s unreviewable [By judges who can void it] or set in stone. ”
I dunno Levi, seems he has you pegged very well.
Obama is just as wrong as George Bush. You don’t judge right and wrong based on who did this or who said that, you judge it against the rule of law.
Bologna. If that were the case, you’d be demanding Obama’s immediate impeachment, trial, and imprisonment on “crimes against humanity”, just like you did with Bush. The fact that you don’t put your money where your mouth is when it comes to enforcing those laws against your Obamamessiah, Levi, is proof that you are flat-out lying in a desperate attempt to save some credibility.
Now now, NDT,
Levi said he’d ‘give Obama a chance’ I expect this trial relationship will last 4 years
#32 – Maybe their relationship will end up like Chris Brown and Rihanna, and Levi will finally get a clue that it’s time to leave it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Actually guys, Levi’s relationship with Obama is just like Chris Brown and Rhianna’s. And like Rhianna, Levi will NEVER leave.
#34 – Touche, Sean.
Regards,
Peter H.