Satan's poll numbers rise

You know that's what the Religious Left are saying about this news:

The same day Dick Cheney delivered  a major speech on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise.

...

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up eight points from January when he left office.

I suspect those poll numbers to rise amongst the sensible after the speech 'Satan' gave today:

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, they bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

There's much more at the link and my only thought is, Dick baby, where have you been?  Why wasn't this said during your administration?  Nevertheless, thank you very much for saying it now.

May it be heard and acted upon.

Comments

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

Wow, great stuff. The whole speech is a must read.

"Why wasn't this said during your administration?"

Wouldn't have mattered. It was said, maybe not this way or in this length all at once, but it was said. Most Americans weren't listening.

[drew_pruett]

To Dick Cheney, the terrorists have won. Because of them, he wants to restrict your liberties, spy on you, throw off the writ of habeus corpus, cover up misdeeds by American soldiers, spies, and mercenaries, and then label you as a traitor if you complain about any of it.

Now we know: there is no ticking bomb scenario except in the minds of fearful little people like him, the terrorists are incompetent little pricks who can barely tie their shoes, and the main state sponsor of terror in the word is the US-Israeli alliance.

Dick, your policies were rejected by the American people, your arguments are weak and/or self-contradictory, and your time in power is over. Go back to your hole and cower there; our time in thrall to your fear-mongering is over.

[Mommynator]

Mr. drew:

Exactly which of your personal rights have been abrogated? Be specific, please.

The wiretapping and email interference was done to KNOWN/SUSPECTED terrorists, not to Mr. & Ms. John Doe.

You have airport check in? El Al airlines has had background checks since its inception many decades ago. You still get to fly and get to where you're going.

You are still free to prattle on with your talking points without any repercussion other than exposure of your stupidity and subsequent dismantling of your Bush-is-evil dogma.

When you have some definite proof that Mr. Cheney personally and up close made you less safe, come tell us.

Otherwise, sit in your dark corner and keep muttering to yourself.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

Ah yes, the same old lies from the Left. Please Drew, provide the specifics for all of your BS accusations.

But I doubt anyone who believes “the main state sponsor of terror in the word is the US-Israeli alliance” would bother to let facts get in the way of some good old fashion delusions.

By the way loser, your boyfriend Barrack has kept many of the War on Terror policies of the Bush administration that you rail against so “your arguments are weak and/or self-contradictory”.

Your ignorance is staggering.

[drew_pruett]

1. Please read the following link, containing citations to Bush-era memos from DOJ and administration lawyers detailing the goverment's "right" to wiretap your internet access and all phone calls against any "suspected" terrorist.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10186374-38.html

"Suspected" is the important word here, not known. The established FISA courts and legislation told how to deal with "known" threats, and the Bush administration wasn't willing to let the "slow" court delay their war on terror.

In other words, the Patriot act and its ilk reduced the standards by which the government can obtain a warrant (if they still have to) to investigate you. Now this may seem like a great idea against terrorists, but the legal justification works against citizens also. I.e., if Obama were the "socialist fascist dictator" (ignoring the implicit contradiction) that certain right-wing news sources claim that he is, he could use those same justifications to bring the entire force of the US government down on you. Using Bush/Cheney's legal arguments. Whoops.

2. The principle right I have is the right to live, and the policies of the US intelligence agencies put that in jeopardy, quoting someone who should be in the know:

John McCain: “And most importantly, it (torture) serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us. And I’ve seen concrete examples of that talking to former high-ranking al-Qaeda individuals in Iraq.“ [Fox News, 4/20/09]

By this point in time, I think we are all in agreement of where the push for EITs came from in this administration, and it was not from interrogators - see in particular the Senate Armed Services Comittee on Detainee Treatment of 2008, paragraphs 3-4 on page 159. So Cheney pushes for EITs that people like McCain say act as recruitment tools for our enemies, thereby jeopardiazing my right to live.

3. Barrack and the policies of the WoT: Of course I disagree with the fact that he is keeping certain policies in play, but you should think about something while you gloat: He is a constitutional law professor by training, which means his avocation the principle of law.

The reason we have separation of powers is so that, when the legislature and executive run wild with their powers, the judicial branch can reign them in. the biggest tool of the judiciary, via John Jay, is judicial review/precedence. In other words, the courts only have power when a challenge is brought before them. When such a challenge is brought, they have great power, and if it is not, they have practically none.

By keeping alive the legal fight begun under Bush, Obama is ensuring that the legal arguments underlying the policies of the last 8 years can be brought before the judiciary and weighed. To just decree that such policies were wrong and stop them would allow someone else to come in later and begin the abuses anew. Instead, said policies will be continues until the courts can have their say and determine exactly what is legal/constitutional. So enjoy that certain policies are being continued, but know that a longer game than the media news cycle is being played here.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

Blah, blah, blah, again please Drew, provide the specifics for all of your BS accusations.

You stated-

“he wants to restrict your liberties, spy on you, throw off the writ of habeus corpus, cover up misdeeds by American soldiers, spies, and mercenaries, and then label you as a traitor if you complain about any of it.”

Name anyone who has had their liberties restricted or anyone who has been spied on. Don't go on about your paranoid scenarios. You made accusations, back them up. Speculating on something doesn’t cut it.

When was habeas corpus ever denied to anyone?

When was any misdeeds covered up?

Who was labeled a “traitor” by V.P. Cheney or Pres. Bush?

So let me get this straight, you were worried that because the Patriot Act changed certain aspect of wire tapping from “known” to suspected (which unto itself is well within reason) during the Bush administration but now that Obama is in the WH you’ve got not problem with it? Other than to throw it out there as a mock threat to somehow prove some such inane point.

“there is no ticking bomb scenario except in the minds” Yea, there are no terrorist nor are they are trying to kill anyone. There’s been over 13,00 attacks worldwide JUST since 9/11 but your right, no one is blotting to do anything here.

And I love how you don’t bother to follow up your disgusting comment “the main state sponsor of terror in the word is the US-Israeli alliance.”

Please, let us hear your reasoning jackoff.

“The principle right I have is the right to live, and the policies of the US intelligence agencies put that in jeopardy, quoting someone who should be in the know”

Actually, though you’re too deranged to understand anything, the US intelligence agencies has kept you alive.

What the hell is the McCain quote have to do with your point, as convoluted as it was?

McCain is wrong about that too, so don’t expect me, or many Republicans for that matter, to defend John McCain on this or many other things.

“By keeping alive the legal fight begun under Bush, Obama is ensuring that the legal arguments underlying the policies of the last 8 years can be brought before the judiciary and weighed. To just decree that such policies were wrong and stop them would allow someone else to come in later and begin the abuses anew. Instead, said policies will be continues until the courts can have their say and determine exactly what is legal/constitutional.”

Bullshit, nice conspiracy theory though. Nothing like giving the benefit of the doubt to your guy but none whatsoever to anyone else. Freakin’ shill. Hope you didn’t hurt yourself bending yourself into a pretzel coming up with that load of crap. What about the policies he didn’t keep, or are we not suppose to talk about them, how do you rectify that with your little dream scenario?

[drew_pruett]

Wow. You realize that substituting personal attacks for rhetorical jabs makes your argument weaker, not stronger, right?

I'll start with the easiest bit: the McCain quote: if US policy causes more people to agree with the rhetoric of terrorists, then that puts me in danger. In a corresponding way, if we show that we live and govern by the morals we preach, we make the argument for democracy and freedom in a way bullets never can.

The benefit of the doubt to Obama but none else: I gave the benefit of the doubt to Bush and Cheney also. Then they dragged the constitution through the mud in the name of patriotism. therefore they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. If you care to read anything Obama says, you will see that he has the utmost respect for the judiciary. Therefore, until he loses respect for the other branches of government, I will assume he is acting with the best interests of the US as a whole in mind.

Misdeeds covered up (military and otherwise): Haliburton's fleecing of the military in Iraq, the Valerie Plame affair, the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch, the actions of Blackwater, now Xe, body armor for our soldiers, WMD's in Iraq, yellowcake uranium, energy policy of the USA, academic censorship of global warming reports at NASA, Abu Ghraib, torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping. Honestly, have you looked at a news source other than Fox news and the echo chambers in the last 8 years?

Habeas corpus was denied to the inmates at GITMO, and according to (a conservative) SCOTUS, this violates the constitution. Congress may suspend habeas if and when the United States faces rebellion or invasion, both of which would be acts of war, which the war on terror was carefully constructed to not be.

Omar Khadr.
Murat Kurnaz
I could find more, but even one is to many. If someone commits a crime, we have courts for that. If its a war crime, there are courts for that. How many detainees have been charged and/or convicted at GITMO?

wireless wiretapping: of course I still have a problem with it. But it must be defeated in courts. The motions will take years. and the fact is, if some part of it stands, that's great, but why didn't Bush just get his Republican Congress to change FISA law in 2003 instead of actively circumventing it? How does this not raise red flags to you?

US-Israel: Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity are well-documented. If you don't know about them, you're not going to listen to me. You're afraid to listen to me. And maybe that's why Dick Cheney makes such sense to you: you're both scared of the big bad terrorists.

[renee]

I'll start with your last and work my way up, I'm limited for time at the moment so I may have to finish it later. The only "Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity" that you claim are "well documented" are the ones that Hamas and other terrorist supportive organizations, promoted by the left wing media outlets, investigated and found to be false and retracted. Maybe if you are a terrorist, you wouldn't see it that way, perhaps one that forced mothers and children into a building where you were firing on Israeli postions, hoping that if they retaliated, it would ensure civilian casualities and give you more propaganda to proclaim "crimes against humanity".

As far as those terrorists not knowing how to tie their shoes and whatnot, you must not have spent very much time with those terrorists, reading their materials, their videos, their files, their pictures, their discussions, their communications. If you had, you would have a far different perspective. I agree with Cheney, now that the damage is done with regard to releasing intelligence operations, release the rest of the story, the memos showing what was stopped. It would be just the tip of the iceberg but maybe it would open some eyes that desparately need to be opened.

Dick Cheney isn't scared of the big bad terrorist but he knows the terrorist, what they are capable of, what they have done, what their plans are. Many of them are highly educated, multiple degrees, scientists, quite elegant in speech, without the need of a teleprompter and a real zeal and passion for what they believe, and the patience and means to get it done.

A terrorist, who is not a US citizen, is not protected under the constitution. If he does not wear a uniform, carry a flag, have a state with declared war against the US, he is not even protected under any treaties of war. The war on terror was different, not because it was carefully "constructed" to be that way, but because the enemy didn't fit any of the normal constructs. No country, even the terrorist's homelands, wanted to take credit for, responsiblity for, consequences for, action against, the captured terrorist. I'm not going to go into all the nuances of their reasons so that I can get to your other points, but there some are the same reasons you wouldn't want to hold them in your neighborhood prison, it invites vistors who live and die for an ideology, a theology that demands no prisoner be left behind or left non-avenged. The same reasons the democrats pulled out the rug from funding the closing of GITMO, because they don't want them in their home states. They've read enough of the intelligence briefings to know what they would invite back home.

The GITMO war tribunals were suspended by the Supreme Court at the protests of the left, not the right. Obama recklessly made promises he realized weren't well thought out with regard to the LAW, you say he understands so well. Removing the terrorists from war tribunals would give them access to evidence and rights thanks to several court rulings, more than our own citizens are privy to, evidence that would endanger operatives and the methods of those who had worked to capture them. Bush followed the letter of the law almost to a fault, Obama can make heads or tails of the law until it's almost too late, and he's supposed to be an expert on constitutional law. If you haven't noticed, Obama had to retreat on his misguided promises back into the safety net Bush created to protect this nation from the terrorists. He's also reserved the right to use those enhanced interrogation methods if he so deems. Of course, now that the enemy knows exactly what they are, they will be of little future use.

As far as the wiretapping, please do a little research into what Obama is onboard with on several international treaties with regard to communications and intellectual properties. If fact, most of Obama's appointees are very openly anti-US constitution and very UN and international law friendly. The constitution is being shredded one international treaty at a time. Obama doesn't have any respect for the constitution, he won't even submit to releasing his birth certificate and other documents to prove he is natural born and eligible. He's turning this nation into a socialist state, ignoring constitutional law with regard to one of its most sacred tenants, the contract. He wants a mandatory servitude program, also ignoring the mandate against such within the constitution. He respects the judiciary if he has an activist judge willing to "exercise empathy" instead of interpreting the law.

Oh man, you are so twisted, so twisted and I have so little time to deal with you right now.

[drew_pruett]

renee: if you're one of the birth certificate folks, I can be certain you're not going to read what I write, but I'll put it down anyway.

Tribunals: the rules have been changed to conform with the requirements of SCOTUS; i.e. they are still tribunals, but they are not the mockery of justice that was being executed under Bush and Co. I'm not saying they're perfect (far from it) but they're a lot better than the neocon version.

Wiretapping: FISA rules have now been changed, and Obama has the benefit of court rulings to help him decide how to move forward. Again, I don't agree with what he's doing, but he's operating with the approval and advisement of the other branches of government, again, not a trait of the Bush admin.

Habeas: SCOTUS (a conservative SCOTUS, at that) ruled that the detainees have the right of habeus corpus. You may not like it, but judges (primarily appointed by Republicans, made that ruling.

Terrorist education: do you really think they all have multiple college degrees and are masterminds of the criminal world? you've got to be kidding me. The education of the ideal terrorist works around the madrasa, which is a place of propaganda, not education. Kind of like the Bush era NSF.

Israel has done their best to ensure 80+% unemployment and complete poverty in gaza and West Bank. You must be a fool if you can't guess what the outcome of such a policy would bring. this doesn't even consider the policies of settlement and denial of humanitarian aid that we have been party to. I'm not saying Hamas is better, I'm saying you have to start by cleaning your own house, not your neighbor's.

Anti-constitution: Article 6: all signed ratified treaties ahave the full force of the US Constitution except when such treaty trumps a claimed State's right (BoR 9/10). Thus the Geneva conventions against Torture and UN Conventions against Torture have the full weight of Constitutional law. You are defending a man who believes that the threat of terrorism trumps the founding principles of America, and logical derivatives thereof. Have you considered what he says, and what you defend?

Finally: you make my point for me: if you're so concerned that Obama's tribunals resemble Bush's, or that the telecom spying resembles Bush's, why didn't you have a problem with it in the first place. Why would you support someone who administration officials have so clearly labelled as an architect of such policies?

Keep in mind, Cheney thought the Sandinistas of Nicaragua were of such a concern that Reagan was empowered to break the law (Minority (Republican) report on Iran-Contra affair).

I'm sorry you're so scared, but to paraphrase Eisenhower's last address, "Get over it"

[renee]

Having an awareness of a threat is not "being scared", preventing a threat being carried out, is not "being scared", and your use of that characterization has the intellect and effect of a four year old pouting "nanny, nanny, boo, boo".

Obama's tribunals aren't sooo different than Bush's and Obamabots were pretty disappointed Obama came to that conclusion. You, certainly must have neglected your reading to miss that? They have yet to be offically defined and I predict they will end up exactly the same as Bush by the time they are done. Obama's pattern is to promise something and then realize it's not a good judgement, and quitely slip in his backtracking in a Friday night press-release behind something that hopefully overshadows it. He comes out with a policy and then says that policy is unsustainable, speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He is the walking defination of instability and our enemies correctly see that as a weakness, a crisis in weakness they won't waste.

Sorry, no points for you...I never said I had a problem with a military tribunal as the means to try terrorists. It was Obama and company that had a problem with tribunals, promised to do away with them and then realized it wasn't such a bad decision afterall. What a tangled web you weave. Difficult to keep up with all his flip-flopping, isn't it?

The enhanced interrogation methods aren't torture, they didn't fall under defination or application of torture, under any law, US, UN, or treaty. There was careful due consideration of those laws by the Bush administration in the establishment of those methods and as I pointed out, Obama has reserved the power to use them again if he deems them necessary howbeit they will not yeild the same effectiveness now that he revealed them to our enemies.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib were an abuse of those methods, where the boundaries in the law and human decency were ignored. They were justifiably revealed and punished. I recall a report that stated somewhere in the range of 415 counts were prosecuted for those abuses.

You really need to expand your reading material to something other than propaganda you are touting against Israel. Israel has bent over backwards, time and time again, given more in humanitarian aide, and tolerated more than any other country would of an enemy that will never settle for anything less than complete destruction of Israel as a state. Perhaps that is your wish as well?

Not every terrorist is highly educated but a majority of the ones in charge are, as are a good number of their experts and lower charges. Again, the evidence is there if you care to look for it...you really need to expand your reading materials and stop relying on a diet of what the MSM serves daily. Until then, yes, you are quite the fool, and being quite the bore. I read enough of your perspective in the MSM, and Obama's borish propaganda addresses to the nation, more annoying than listening to a flock of parrots, you are.

[Chris Vehr]

The election of Obama the Appeaser will prove to be a mistake by the American people. Muslim extremists still want us and Israel destroyed and they have the patience to wait us out. Won't be long. As Obama and his lemmings force us to drop our guard, the evilness will ooze its way back in.

Cheney will be right.

I hope I'm wrong.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

Basically Drew, what it boils down to is that you view this country in the most negative way possible. You believe that any perceived wrong is but an opportunity to hold it against America while conversely giving the scum of the earth the benefit of the doubt and your support.

You view terrorists, those that do not deserve protection of the Geneva Convention much less our Constitution, as people who should be treated with the utmost respect and protection under the sun.

You view our military through the prism of the occasional wrong rather than the incredible accomplishments they achieve.

You pick at the little scab and declare that the body must be lost to some hideous, incurable disease.

It’s not about waterboarding or Bush or Cheney, they are but an excuse for you to hate this country. You would have singled out the next “worst” interrogation technique to claim as “torture”, you would have found something, anything without the “missing” WMD’s or Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. You fool no one, these are nothing more than manifestations for you loathing of this country. You will continue to find errors and grievances to focus on, to rail against and to hold up as examples for some perverse flogging of America.

While you can easily site the particulars off perceived wrongs I doubt you can name (without searching the internet) one soldier who volunteered to go to war, one marine who has selflessly gave their life for their country or one hero awarded the Medal of Honor.

I doubt you’ve read one book about someone who went to war or one book about Islam, jihad or terrorism?

What do you do to celebrate the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Veterans Day? Most likely nothing, you see nothing worth celebrating, remembering or honoring.

I feel sorry for you, I really do. It takes effort to be so negative about a country that; has done more good for humanity than the rest of the world combined; freed millions from oppression and tyranny again and again; given hope and comfort to people who had nothing. It’s the greatest country in the world, yet people like you would rather piss on it and point out its relatively small mistakes and blemishes than embrace its good and righteousness.

So go ahead, enjoy your misery and wallow in your shit hole of rhetoric like “the main state sponsor of terror in the word is the US-Israeli alliance”. Nothing else you say is needed other than that. It speaks volumes of your mindset, attitude and worldview.

I’d rather cherish, appreciate and love my country, warts and all. I can only wonder why you obviously don’t.

You disgust me.

[renee]

tim aka The Godless Heathen, that was perfectly said.

Charles had a few words on this topic over at the Washington Post today, he's such a great writer/thinker, I appreciate his work, too. I've pulled bits of it out...

"If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.

The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an "enormous failure." Obama suspended them upon his swearing-in. Now they're back.

Of course, Obama will never admit in word what he's doing in deed. As in his rhetorically brilliant national-security speech yesterday claiming to have undone Bush's moral travesties, the military commissions flip-flop is accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy.

Cosmetic changes such as Obama's declaration that "we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel." Laughable. High-toned liberal law firms are climbing over each other for the frisson of representing these miscreants in court.

What about disallowing evidence received under coercive interrogation? Hardly new, notes former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. Under the existing rules, military judges have that authority, and they exercised it under the Bush administration to dismiss charges against al-Qaeda operative Mohammed al-Qahtani on precisely those grounds.

On Guantanamo, it's Obama's fellow Democrats who have suddenly discovered the wisdom of Bush's choice. In open rebellion against Obama's pledge to shut it down, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to reject appropriating a single penny until the president explains where he intends to put the inmates. Sen. James Webb, the de facto Democratic authority on national defense, wants the closing to be put on hold. And on Tuesday, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, no Gitmo inmates on American soil -- not even in American jails...

...Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: "The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) -- and now Guantanamo."

Jack Goldsmith (The New Republic) adds: rendition -- turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets -- claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus -- to detainees in Afghanistan's Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo...

...That's happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds."