Obama Considers Making Things Worse

His own numbers beginning to tank, Obama is considering pulling out the Bush investigations card as a distraction. It's a bad move. His popularity will just go down that much further and faster if he considers buying into this stunt. His whole deal was supposed to be looking forward. Now that the electorate isn't liking the new vision, he may consider going backwards. That's not very bright.

Leading Democrats on Sunday demanded investigations of how a highly classified counterterrorism program was kept secret from the Congressional leadership on the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Fox News Sunday called it a “big problem.” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, on “This Week” on ABC, agreed that the secrecy “could be illegal” and demanded an inquiry.

Comments

[Lala]

Found this -

"'You can tell that the president, whose poll numbers are starting to plummet as a result of his bumbling incompetence, is starting to feel the heat, when he resorts to a myriad of investigations of the Bush administration to bolster his popularity.

Nevertheless, here's another interesting, and perhaps somewhat related, tidbit:

The President on Friday tapped Mr. Glyn Davies - who served as State Dept. spokesman under former President Bill Clinton - to be the US envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna.

In September of 1996, Mr. Davies, stated that he saw "nothing objectionable" about the Taliban imposing its strict interpretation of Islamic law."

http://obamareport.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-appointee-i-see-nothing.html

[Philip McDaniel]

This is exactly why the Republican Party needs to get its act together. The Democrats are about to get much crazier as the 'ship of State' starts sinking along with the economy tanking and the lobbyists and Global Warming alarmists running amok in Washington.

Of course, it will all be George Bush's fault...along with Sara Palin and her children and a moose or two thrown in for good measure. Those of us down here in the countryside grass need to start communicating directly with our elected officials and also with our unelected political 'gurus' about what will and will not be acceptable. Otherwise either kiss off the next two elections or try to create a new party -- in which case we kiss off the next 4 to 6 elections. By-by Miss American Pie.

[Patrick Bateman]

Lie.

This is not Obama's "consideration," but rather the AG's idea. Moreover, Obama has no authority to tell the AG what to investigate or not investigate. If you think Obama *wants* to investigate Bush-era crimes at the expense of his domestic agenda, you're either stupid and/or dishonest.

[Nishner]

Actually, Obama really doesn't want to start investigating Bush / Cheney, it's a huge distraction for him and doesn't help get his programs through Congress.

“I agree with the president of the United States, it’s time to move forward and not go back,” Mr. McCain said.

[Chris]

Holder has never done anything but follow orders in the past. See Elian Gonzalez and Mark Rich for a primer. But now we're to believe this is entirely his own doing. The AG serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. I think the show trials will serve a useful purpose, but not the one the administration has in mind. Didn't Holder sign off on renditions during the Clinton admin. as well?

Smart $$ taking Cheney in TKO.

[Rob Crawford]

Obama could settle the question by issuing pardons, Bateman and Nishner.

Or he could fire Holder for going off message and not sticking to the administration's priorities. It's Obama's administration, right? Holder's position is appointed, not elected, and certainly not subject to civil service protections.

[Patrick Bateman]

"Holder has never done anything but follow orders in the past. See Elian Gonzalez and Mark Rich for a primer."

Was holder the AG in those instances?

"But now we're to believe this is entirely his own doing."

Again, do you really think that the coming winger tantrum over investigating the Bush admin. is compatible with Obama's domestic goals? If so, you're an idiot. If not, you're a liar.

"The AG serves at the pleasure of the POTUS."

The president can not tell the AG whom to investigate / prosecute. It's illegal. The AG can be impeached by the Congress; he cannot be fired by the president.

"Obama could settle the question by issuing pardons, Bateman and Nishner."

Pre-emptive pardons? Why? Under what precedent?

"Or he could fire Holder for going off message and not sticking to the administration's priorities."

No he can't.

"It's Obama's administration, right? Holder's position is appointed, not elected, and certainly not subject to civil service protections."

He wasn't "appointed." He was confirmed by the Senate. Holder doesn't work for the president. Again, you either know all of this, making you a liar, or you don't - making you incompetent to comment. Which is it?

[Ran]

The rhetorical master [B] failed to recognize that "considering" is not the same as "desiring." Besides, whether they are serious or not, the point is that this is a distraction. "Oh look! There's the smoke!!" usually leaves out "(Shhhh! and the mirror!)"

Watch what this administration is doing elsewhere. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Show trials is not the real story. Heh. I wonder what Drudge has up...

[North Dallas Thirty]

If you think Obama *wants* to investigate Bush-era crimes at the expense of his domestic agenda, you're either stupid and/or dishonest.

Actually, he needs to do it because his domestic agenda is tipping over and dying. For some reason, Americans no longer trust the party of tax cheats who want to raise taxes, crooks who claim to be for good government, and incompetents who claim to favor eliminating inefficiencies.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"The president can not tell the AG whom to investigate / prosecute. It's illegal. The AG can be impeached by the Congress; he cannot be fired by the president."

Oh really?

The Attorney General is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by the President at any time; the Attorney General is also subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General

Aside from that, as we see, Obama already has broken the law by firing Inspectors General without the requisite notice and process -- hilarious, when you consider that Obama co-sponsored the very law that makes doing so illegal.

The Obamamessiah likes to lie and spread his lies through puppets like Patrick Bateman, who are so obsessed with and obedient to Obama that they're willing to humiliate themselves by spewing the obvious lies that Obama tells.

[Rob Crawford]

Gee, Bateman, which of us isn't qualified to comment? Obama CAN fire Holder for going off message, for going against his administration priorities.

"Pre-emptive pardons? Why? Under what precedent?"

Why? So that the people involved won't be prosecuted/persecuted. Under what precedent? Um, the fricking Constitution:

"The President... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." (Article 2, Section 2)

Again, you either know all this, making you a liar, or you don't, making you incompetent to comment. Which is it, Bateman?

(FWIW, I don't think you're lying.)

[JustOneMan]

Ohhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo.....the Bush administration had a secret program to kill Al Queda leaders...oh the inhumanity...the horor...somebody has to pay for these crimes against humanity!!!!

[wally sandaver]

"I am not a crook." This reminds me of three events: 1) Republicans claiming that Clinton was trying to bomb Bin Ladin to take the heat off of the scrutiny of Clinton's sex life; 2) Republicans claiming that Watergate was political posturing by Democrats, and 3) Nixon forcing out his AG and firing his special prosecutor.

For the first, one would think people would think twice about claims of the tail wagging the dog after those efforts to stop Clinton from bombing Bin Ladin may have allowed 9/11 to happen. And please, Clinton's other failed attempts to take out Bin Ladin don't excuse the Republicans for stopping those attempts.

For the second item, you would think people would think twice for challenging an AG who is investigating a secret White plan to use the national security appartus in potential violation of federal law. A possible secret assasinaion ring that the VP controlled without the required statutory notice to 12 congressional leaders is serious stuff. Brushing it under the rug is dumb for Holder, dumb for Obama and dumb for anyone concerned about the rule of law. This was Nixon's coup de grace, when he tried to obstruct justice and then claimed that he didn't. It is always a baaaad move for any President to brush things under the rug.

IN regard to the third item, I think Patrick is wrong that the AG can't be fired by the President, although I am too lazy to check. I don't trust Wiki to explain Constitutional law. However, let's be real; the Saturday Night Massacre was Richard Nixon accepting the resignation of of Elliot Richardson (and DAG Ruckleshous). EVEN Nixon at the height of his kingdom knew that firing an AG was dumb political move. "I am not a crook."

[North Dallas Thirty]

"For the first, one would think people would think twice about claims of the tail wagging the dog after those efforts to stop Clinton from bombing Bin Ladin may have allowed 9/11 to happen."

And again, the leftist tries historical revisionism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/bill_clinton_bin_laden_and_hys.html

Then again, this is Wally, who tried to claim that no one had ever called a sitting President or Supreme Court justice a racist or Nazi before.

http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html

http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2005/09/56901.html

[SacTownMan]

Dallas puts the smackdown on yet another "Know it all", "holier than thou" troll!!

Ever noticed that they seldom come back and admit their stupidity!

What do you expect from another moonbat with a name like "Patrick"!

Does anybody else notice these trolls always seem to have names like Jamie, Patrick and Conar! I'll bet these are the same punks that got a regular ass whopping in high school!

And congratulations are in order for Slime, I hear he got that "Assistant Shift Manager" job at his Taco Bell!!

Moving up the world there Slime!

[wally sandaver]

Some Senators and Newt supported the President but so many Republican Congressmen and commenters condemned it that is seems silly to contend that this was not an accepted Republican party meme. Even though it was years ago, I still remember clearly that the hard right partisan House members dumped on Clinton and some wise old Republican (mainly moderates), supported Clinton. That article you linked cherry picked the supporters and ignored the attackers.

The quote from Rep. Dan Coats is much more indicative of the criticism than the quotes that the article cherry picks.

"I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down."

And there are many, many more like Coates.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2005-11/msg00939.pdf

The release by Rep. Dick Armey reads, "The suspicion that some people have about the
president's motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for
impeachment. ... These doubts may or may not be warranted ... but the
fact that some Americans are expressing these doubts shows that the
president is losing his ability to lead."
"He already did this when he got in trouble this summer," barks Alabama
Rep. Spencer Bachus. "He spent $100 million to blow up a drugstore in
Sudan and a few camels in Afghanistan. ...We have very legitimate
reasons to question the motivation for this attack."
"[The bombing] is an insult," flames Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of
California. "The American people can no longer trust him [Clinton]."

Good resarch on the Hitler and Nazi Germany comparisons. I stand corrected. But some of those comparisons are so good that I found many of them compelling. The use of fear and patriotism to achieve invasion of a country that did not attack us is indeed Nazi like. Funny but a great Democratic President may have done it too - FDR. In any case, Hitler, FDR, Bush, it is wrong. Also, I do think the Nazi term on its own is loaded when used with no context and that is how they bandied about at Palin rallies. If someone said, that Obama's continuation of the the indefinite detention procedures is Nazi Germany like, I can understand that. I would not use it, but I understand it. But I don't understand the angry mob use of it and Palin's acceptance of it.

My post was that it was not common or acceptable to call Supreme Court nominees racist until recently. One blog on Roberts does not really equate to two Republican party leaders (e.g. Rush and Newt - racist).

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Some Senators and Newt supported the President but so many Republican Congressmen and commenters condemned it that is seems silly to contend that this was not an accepted Republican party meme."

Hi-larious. From Wally's own source:

“Although most in Congress rallied around Clinton on Thursday, two Republican U.S. senators and one Central Florida congressman broke with the tradition of standing behind a president during a foreign crisis.Sen. Daniel Coats, R-Ind., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay, publicly questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks so soon after his public admission of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky."

Two Senators and one Representative. And ironically enough, one of the Senators is an Obama Party member now. But of course, that constitutes "so many".

And even more funny, Wally's whiny hissy fit:

"That article you linked cherry picked the supporters and ignored the attackers."

Oh really? And where were all the Republican supporters in YOUR article? Or did you once again get caught accusing a conservative of that which you were practicing yourself?

"Good resarch on the Hitler and Nazi Germany comparisons. I stand corrected."

No, you don't, because your comment wasn't made out of ignorance; it was made out of pure malice and a deliberate attempt to lie.

You were caught lying. And now, instead of admitting that you lied, you try to spread another lie and get out of the behavior that you and your Obama Party endorsed and supported when directed at Bush by trying to attack Sarah Palin.

Now, Wally, you're going to say flat-out that the use of Nazi comparisons by any Obama Party member or at any event sponsored by or in which Obama Party members participated means that Barack Obama and all members of the Obama Party support Nazi comparisons for George Bush.

Because that's what you're trying to pull in regards to Palin.

[wally sandaver]

Dallas,
The links I came up with listed lots more 'wag the doggers' than Coats, Specter and Wheldon. Armey, Rohrbacher, Bachus, etc. Army and Spector were very, very high up too. How did you miss those?

Also remember, there are two other issues here - Republicans claiming Watergate was poltical posturing by Democrats and Nixon pushing out his AG thus being famous for obstructing justice. This is very bad history for Dick Cheney - most Americans (who are not pro torture and not pro warrantless domestic spying) will want investigations of possible violations of this possible assasinaiton ring.

BTW, "Malice?" "Whiny hissy fit?" "Lyin?" Have you tried valium? Or maybe some kind of anti-hate pill? Get ahold of your anger and I would be happy to converse with you. The funny part is that when I admitted I was wrong, I cross posted with Sactownman who claimed that posters who did walk lockstep with Riehl "seldom come back and admit their stupidity." Well, I am not sure stupid or lyin are the words but I did admit I was wrong on the Bush - Nazi issue. Not so hard.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Also remember, there are two other issues here - Republicans claiming Watergate was poltical posturing by Democrats and Nixon pushing out his AG thus being famous for obstructing justice."

Um, no. They were never mentioned in the original post, nor do they appear anywhere but in your own comment. Those are issues that you chose to raise for whatever reason, my guess being as strawmen in an attempt to blame Republicans for the idiocy spouted by your fellow Obama Party member about the Attorney General not being answerable to the President, or as some kind of convoluted rationalization for why your party is desperately trying to cover up for the screaming and lying Nancy Pelosi and the fact that she fully endorsed and supported what she now whines is "torture".

The problem we have here, Wally, is that you're simply not capable of doing anything other than spreading lies for your Obama Party.

Example #1:

"That article you linked cherry picked the supporters and ignored the attackers."

Did it, now?

From that article:

"Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:

I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.

Arlen Specter (R—Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/bill_clinton_bin_laden_and_hys.html

In short, you lied about the article I cited. Now, since you supposedly dislike articles that "cherry pick" and claim that those are biased sources, please show where in yours those Republicans who supported Clinton are - or criticize your own article as being biased and nonfactual, the same way you tried to criticize mine.

"BTW, "Malice?" "Whiny hissy fit?" "Lyin?" Have you tried valium? Or maybe some kind of anti-hate pill? Get ahold of your anger and I would be happy to converse with you."

Actually, no; you've already made it clear that you think I'm a racist and misogynist, so truly, there's very little else you could say that would interest me. Given that this is now twice that I've demonstrated that you are a malicious liar, I also doubt that a single word you say could be trusted, either.

"Well, I am not sure stupid or lyin are the words but I did admit I was wrong on the Bush - Nazi issue. Not so hard."

You see, Wally, liberals like yourself always brag about how much more intelligent and educated you are than we conservative types. You either have to admit that you're an ignorant fool who couldn't do basic research, or that you were deliberately lying.

[WBestPresidentEver]

I think Holder is doing what Obama has told him to do. Holder is not doing this on his on. Also, they tell the media what to print and what to say.
Michael Moore is pissed and Patrick Leahy has been pushing for investigations for a while now and so are other groups like the daily kos that want the Bush Administration investigated and that other jerk off, John Conyers has been pushing it for a long time.
Obama does not want to be directly involved but he can pretend he has nothing to do with it so these slimebags will get of his back about it and his poll numbers will go back up.
It is also a diversion away from cap and trade and health care. If he can get his ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, AND CNBC MEDIA DARLINGS to turn up the heat of these investigations and say little about the health care they are trying to sneak in and the cap and trade tax bill, then he may well get these things passed whiel no one is watching. JUST KEEP AN EYE ON THINGS !

[MGB]

From here the worst thing Obama could do is get killed and give us Leslie Nielsen ("I want to live in a world where I can walk into a 7-11 WITHOUT AN INTERPRETER!!!!!!) Biden as president.