The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123419413739063989.html

 

'The World' Goes It Alone

"We are ready to lead once more," Obama declared. Will anyone follow?

 

* Article

 

more in Opinion »

 

* Email

* Printer Friendly

* Share:

o Yahoo Buzz more

o facebook

o MySpace

o LinkedIn

o Digg

o del.icio.us

o NewsVine

o StumbleUpon

o Mixx

* smaller Text Size larger

*

 

By JAMES TARANTO

 

The vice president was in Munich over the weekend, helping to repair all the damage wrought by the Bush Administration's contempt for the rest of the world. How did it go? The Associated Press reports on his meeting with Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov:

 

Ivanov made no concessions after meeting face-to-face with Vice President Joe Biden to discuss issues that have caused friction between Washington and Moscow in recent years.

 

Ivanov said Biden had "reaffirmed the strong intention of the U.S. to start (relations) anew," which the Russian official said was "very positive" for Russia-U.S. ties.

 

"The U.S. administration sent a very strong signal, and the signal was heard--a signal that says they're ready to resume the Russian and U.S. dialogue frankly and openly," Ivanov told a news conference on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

 

But he said Russia did not feel it necessary to immediately reciprocate.

 

"It is not an Oriental bazaar," he said. "And we do not trade the way people do in the bazaars."

 

Biden also called on European allies to contribute more to the military effort in Afghanistan. As a Washington Post story previewing Biden's trip noted, his audience was not a terribly receptive one:

 

When [President] Obama sends his vice president and other top emissaries to an international security conference here this weekend to seek help with the war in Afghanistan, NATO allies are unlikely to be as enthusiastic, European defense officials and analysts said in interviews. . . .

 

Although European leaders say they are eager to curry favor with the new U.S. president, they are proving just as reluctant to contribute more soldiers or money to the NATO-led operation as they were during President George W. Bush's last years in the White House.

 

"We are ready to lead once more," Obama declared in his Inaugural Address:

 

Our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, . . . our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

 

With its friends, America now seeks "even greater cooperation and understanding between nations." To its enemies, "we will extend a hand." In exchange, the other nations of the world will

 

Hey, isn't that a squirrel over there?

 

So Much for Bipartisanship

President Obama's overtures to the mad mullahs who run Iran so far seem to be bearing only bitter fruit, as evidenced by this speech from Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, identified by the Middle East Media Research Institute as "interim Friday prayer leader":

 

Referring to the Gaza issue, Khatami said that said Arabs had clashed with the usurper Israelis several times over the past 61 years, since the formation of the forged Israeli regime, but that the wars had proven ineffective. He added that the 33-day war of Lebanon and the Gaza attack had brought the Zionist state a humiliating defeat.

 

He added that the world should know that the tyrannical and forged Zionist state is a threat to global peace and tranquility.

 

On comments by U.S. President Barack Obama two weeks ago, Khatami said that Obama's motto of change is a mere lie because he is repeating the mistake of his predecessor George W. Bush. "Despite Obama's emphasis on the U.S. commitment to maintain the security of the Qods [Jerusalem]-occupying regime, and to continue sanctions against Iran, neither the Iranian nor other people worldwide will believe his false gestures."

 

It should be noted that Ayatollah Khatami is not related to Mohammad Khatami, a former president of Iran. Mohammad Khatami, as everyone knows, is a moderate--Iran's equivalent of Olympia Snowe.

 

Last week, when immoderate Republicans refused to get with the program and support the stimulus bill, the president let loose with a rip-roarin' speech denouncing them for "turning back to the same policies" that wrought such destruction for the eight years prior to his inauguration. If the ayatollah isn't careful, Obama just may denounce him too.

 

Unless the president believes that partisanship ends at the water's edge.

 

A New Rendition of an Old Song

Barack Obama has been president for less than three weeks, and it's sometimes hard to remember how different everything was before change. Example: President Bush's policy of "extraordinary rendition," in which, it is said, terrorists were turned over to foreign intelligence services for interrogation. Legend has it that the foreigners tortured the terrorists.

 

Technically, this was not Bush's policy exactly. It was instituted by President Clinton. But that just shows how averse Bush was to change. Not only did he refuse to change his own policies, he didn't even change some of his predecessor's policies.

 

Now, however, everything really has changed, as detailed in this Associated Press report on CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta's confirmation hearing:

 

The United States will continue to hand foreign detainees over to other countries for questioning, but only with assurances they will not be tortured, Leon Panetta told a Senate committee considering his confirmation as CIA director.

 

OK, we guess not everything has changed. The U.S. will still do rendition, but the important thing is that now, for the first time, we will demand assurances that they won't be tortured.

 

Oh, wait:

 

That has long been U.S. policy, but some former prisoners subjected to the process--known as extraordinary rendition--during the Bush administration's anti-terror war say they were tortured.

 

Panetta must be toughening the demands for assurance, insisting that foreign governments pinky-swear and that the whole process be witnessed by a notary public, or something like that.

 

Or not:

 

"I will seek the same kind of assurances that they will not be treated inhumanely," Panetta said Friday in his second day before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

Hmm, what could it be that the Obama administration is doing differently? Oh, we know! At least now the U.S. will no longer render terrorists for the purpose of having them tortured.

 

Uh, guess that's not it either:

 

Panetta formally retracted a statement he made Thursday that the Bush administration transferred prisoners for the purpose of torture.

 

"I am not aware of the validity of those claims," he said.

 

Heraclitus observed that change is the only constant. Finally, that paradox makes sense!

 

Tax Troubles at Foggy Bottom

Yet another Obama administration official turns out to have a history of trouble with the Internal Revenue Service--a history that the transition team's vetters appear to have missed despite its having been reported in major newspapers such as the New York Times.

 

The official in question is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to a Times report published Aug. 6, 1995, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, Bill, apparently took several improper deductions for payments related to a dubious real-estate investment.

 

In 1992 Mr. Clinton, at the time a candidate for public office, acknowledged that he and Mrs. Clinton "had improperly claimed tax deductions for interest payments that had actually been made by the Whitewater Development Company, not by themselves." He attributed the wrongful deduction to an accountant's error and pledged to pay up--but did not do so for almost two years.

 

Granted, this was all resolved before Barack Obama even started running for president--but that didn't help Nancy Killefer. The Times report also suggests that some of the Clintons' interest deductions were actually for payments of principal, which is not deductible.

 

According to the Times, most of these irregularities were identified by the lawyers who did vetting for the last Democratic presidential administration. Tellingly, Mrs. Clinton was never nominated for a position in that administration.

 

Last week President Obama said, "Ultimately it's important to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes." Doesn't that apply at Foggy Bottom?

 

Case Dismissed? Not Quite.

Reader Lawrence Morris, an army colonel who serves as chief prosecutor in the Pentagon's Office of Military Commissions, writes to clarify a few points in our Friday item about the latest developments at Guantanamo Bay:

 

The charges against the 9/11 detainees were not dismissed. The judge in that case, and most of the pending cases (a couple of rulings still have not been issued), granted our request for 120-day continuances, in accord with direction from the secretary of defense, who of course was acting at the president's behest, to give time for the "review" to be accomplished. Still, you are right that the dismissal is of little consequence, as we will--should commissions be revived or altered--charge Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri again.

 

The judge in this case did not "defy" the order, however, because it applied to us, the prosecutors, not the independent judge. It directed us to seek continuances--which we did and which he lawfully denied (and the arraignment was scheduled well before Jan. 20). The president and secretary had chosen the most legally modest course in directing us to seek continuances, rather than directing that charges be withdrawn; they always had the authority to withdraw or dismiss and then chose to go that route when the judge denied the continuance. As there had been no proceedings in this case, the withdrawal (these charges weren't dismissed) won't matter. Dismissal in other cases in which we have had considerable litigation (9/11, Omar Khadr and a couple of others) would have been much more consequential.

 

You are also right, of course, in your point about the president being commander in chief, which the public--and sometimes politicians--has trouble remembering or respecting, but which is a given for us who are soldier-lawyers. We speak up, give our advice, then execute any lawful orders.

 

We wrote that the judge had effectively defied the order, but we suppose it is worth emphasizing that it was not actually an act of insubordination.

[BigSqwert]

Hey, you're one of the ones that says he will fix everything. We've been over this before, many times.

I never said he would fix everything. I knew he would be an exponential improvement over your pal GWB and he's already showing that he will be.

Edited February 10, 2009 by BigSqwert

[lostfan]

I never said he would fix everything. I knew he would be an exponential improvement over your pal GWB and he's already showing that he will be.

Kap likes GWB? Really?

Edited February 10, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Kap likes GWB? Really?

No, not really. In fact, I think his idea of "small government" was part of the reason Obama thinks he can spend his way out of this recession to the tune of $1T.

 

In that area alone, GWB was a colossal failure. Of course there's more... but the point I keep making over and over is that THEY ALL SUCK. And I think that Obama is the biggest fraud and double standard president we have seen for a long, long time.

 

As long as he doesn't lie under oath, I will at least respect him more then I do BJ Clinton.

 

[BigSqwert]

And I think that Obama is the biggest fraud and double standard president we have seen for a long, long time.

 

You're sounding like Sean Hannity more and more each day.

[EvilMonkey]

The noose is starting to get a little tighter around Murtha. I wonder how long until Obama tries to call off the dogs? And a tip to Tex, I will acknowledge that in the very first line they mention that he is a Democrat. Kinda hard to hide that, but at least the mentioned it.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...0438&page=1

 

EXCLUSIVE: FBI Raided Lobbying Firm Connected to Murtha

Feds Narrowing In On Companies With Ties To Congressman

By EMMA SCHWARTZ and JUSTIN ROOD

February 9, 2009

The FBI raided the offices of a defense lobbying firm with close ties to Democratic Rep. John Murtha (Penn.), sources tell ABC News.

 

The FBI raided the offices of a defense lobbying firm with close ties to Democratic Rep. John Murtha (Penn.), sources tell ABC News.The FBI searched the Virginia headquarters of the PMA Group in November, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. PMA was founded by former Murtha aide Paul Magliochetti and specializes in winning earmarked taxpayer funds for its clients.

 

Good government groups have long criticized Murtha's cozy relationship with a handful of lobbyists and defense firms, ties that see millions of dollars in government spending go out from Murtha's office, and hundreds of thousands in campaign donations come in. Murtha has said his earmarking has helped revive his economically depressed district.

 

PMA is the second company with close ties to Murtha to be raided by federal agents recently. In January, agents from the FBI, the IRS and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service searched the office of Kuchera Industries and Kuchera Defense Systems, as well as the homes of the firms' founders. The companies reportedly have received over $100 million in earmarks, thanks to Murtha's efforts.

[kapkomet]

You're sounding like Sean Hannity more and more each day.

Really? I wouldn't know because I don't listen to them. However, the facts are plainly speaking for themselves because he's going back on damn near everything he said he would do with the exception of the things that will placate the hard left.

[NorthSideSox72]

Really? I wouldn't know because I don't listen to them. However, the facts are plainly speaking for themselves because he's going back on damn near everything he said he would do with the exception of the things that will placate the hard left.

Now that is just patently untrue. He has, as far as I know, "gone back on" a grand total of one thing: lobbyists in the administration. What other promises has he gone back on?

 

Meanwhile, he has also screwed a few things up - i.e. some of this cabinet nominations, and his inability to exert more influence over Congress about these stimulus bills. Those aren't broken promises though.

 

On the other hand, he has done a number of things he said he'd do, already. Look at his XO's, that we have discussed in here.

 

Obama has stumbled, but he's still more good than bad, so far. That's a far cry better than what we had before him. Though there is still lots of room for improvement, and the lobbyist thing irritates me to no end.

 

[BigSqwert]

However, the facts are plainly speaking for themselves because he's going back on damn near everything he said he would do with the exception of the things that will placate the hard left.

Other than being more loose on lobbyists than was expected what else would you consider 'damn near everything'? The guy has served as President for less than a month and if I were only to listen to your opinions I would think that we elected Adolf Hitler or something.

[kapkomet]

Now that is just patently untrue. He has, as far as I know, "gone back on" a grand total of one thing: lobbyists in the administration. What other promises has he gone back on?

 

Meanwhile, he has also screwed a few things up - i.e. some of this cabinet nominations, and his inability to exert more influence over Congress about these stimulus bills. Those aren't broken promises though.

 

On the other hand, he has done a number of things he said he'd do, already. Look at his XO's, that we have discussed in here.

 

Obama has stumbled, but he's still more good than bad, so far. That's a far cry better than what we had before him. Though there is still lots of room for improvement, and the lobbyist thing irritates me to no end.

The loopholes in interrogation methods. The method of standing up for what Nancy Pelosi wrote for him in the House version of the "stimulus" - telling House GOP "I won". Yea, some change. Some outreach. There's a lot more but the point's the same.

[BigSqwert]

Yea, some change. Some outreach.

He has gone out of his way to talk to GOP members of the House and Senate and get their feedback. What news have you been watching?

[NorthSideSox72]

The loopholes in interrogation methods. The method of standing up for what Nancy Pelosi wrote for him in the House version of the "stimulus" - telling House GOP "I won". Yea, some change. Some outreach. There's a lot more but the point's the same.

The "loopholes"? From what I have seen, any perceived "loopholes" just aren't true.Obama promised to stop torture, and he's making his way in that direction.

 

And where did you get this telling the GOP "I won"? I must have missed that.

 

[lostfan]

The loopholes in interrogation methods. The method of standing up for what Nancy Pelosi wrote for him in the House version of the "stimulus" - telling House GOP "I won". Yea, some change. Some outreach. There's a lot more but the point's the same.

If one was to accept that at face value they'd have to just about completely ignore everything else he's said and all his attempts at bipartisanship except that one speech he gave when he was pissed off because he extended his hand, but it got bitten. Besides that he's really been bending over backwards to cooperate with the GOP, the left is even starting to complain that he's doing it too much, to think otherwise is to just ignore reality.

[lostfan]

And where did you get this telling the GOP "I won"? I must have missed that.

A few days ago he pretty much blasted the GOP for being uncooperative on the stimulus bill, and in so many words he said the Democrats won, so that's how things are going to be.

[DukeNukeEm]

What news have you been watching?

The news he wants to hear.

[southsider2k5]

He has gone out of his way to talk to GOP members of the House and Senate and get their feedback. What news have you been watching?

 

Bush used to have both parties up to the White House, that doesn't mean he was exactly bipartisian.

[BigSqwert]

Bush used to have both parties up to the White House, that doesn't mean he was exactly bipartisian.

To quote Kap "some outreach". There was outreach so why the lying?

[NorthSideSox72]

A few days ago he pretty much blasted the GOP for being uncooperative on the stimulus bill, and in so many words he said the Democrats won, so that's how things are going to be.

Ah, so I did miss something. I saw some quotes from that rant, but didn't see that one. No need for him to be petty about it.

 

[lostfan]

No, not really. In fact, I think his idea of "small government" was part of the reason Obama thinks he can spend his way out of this recession to the tune of $1T.

 

In that area alone, GWB was a colossal failure. Of course there's more... but the point I keep making over and over is that THEY ALL SUCK. And I think that Obama is the biggest fraud and double standard president we have seen for a long, long time.

 

As long as he doesn't lie under oath, I will at least respect him more then I do BJ Clinton.

btw I know you're not a Bush fan, I was asking that sarcastically cuz Sqwert phrased his post to make it sound like you liked him when of course you don't.

[mr_genius]

He has gone out of his way to talk to GOP members of the House and Senate and get their feedback. What news have you been watching?

 

uh

 

you might want to get news from somewhere besides huffingtonpost.com, dailkos and MSNBC

 

 

[mr_genius]

Edited February 10, 2009 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

Ah, so I did miss something. I saw some quotes from that rant, but didn't see that one. No need for him to be petty about it.

And in his first month has called out Rush and Hannity by name on seperate occasions. Imagine if Bush had called out Randi Rhodes or any other Air America host by name? Petty indeed.

[BigSqwert]

uh

 

you might want to get news from somewhere besides huffingtonpost.com, dailkos and MSNBC

 

Fox news is blocked at my work.

[BigSqwert]

And in his first month has called out Rush and Hannity by name on seperate occasions. Imagine if Bush had called out Randi Rhodes or any other Air America host by name? Petty indeed.

He pretty much called out GOP leadership. Who else would you call the leader of the GOP these days? Joe the Plumber?

[mr_genius]

Fox news is blocked at my work.

 

Huffingtonpost obviously isn't. all you do is parrot that trash.