April 22, 2009
On the Other Hand...
Over at my favorite blog, John Hinderaker wrote a post about the absurdist betrayal by Democrats who want to hold hearings trashing intelligence agents -- and bully the Obama administration into prosecuting them -- for the crime of doing what everyone, including the congressional Democrats themselves, urged them to do... namely, keep America safe from al-Qaeda, Iran, and other violent, murderous terrorists.
Paul Mirengoff adds a coda to the piece. In it, he writes:
Moreover hearings would enable these officials to have their say; right now the left-wing MSM largely controls what the public learns about these issues.
Obama understands this. That is why he -- and even more tellingly, his smartest political operative Rahm Emanuel -- initially seemed to be against the idea of prosecutions and showed little enthusiasm for congressional hearings.
Why has Obama shifted his position? Probably because he is weak, indecisive, and "not always up to standard on decision-making."
Paul's suggested motivation is possible, of course; but there is another possibility he evidently has not considered. Perhaps Obama changed his mind because his former colleages in the Senate and House have assured him that the subjects of the congressional witch hunts will not be allowed "to have their say"... that just like much of the legislation that passes through Congress these days, the hearings will only be open to witnesses with the correct political position.
Don't imagine they have any moral scruples that would argue against it!
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, April 22, 2009, at the time of 11:46 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3595
Comments
The following hissed in response by: Zelsdorf2
Leaks from the CIA will have an effect on the hearings. And the fact many Democrats face reelection in 2010. I do not think the so called power in the Senate and house want to open doors that will be hard to shut once opened. Besides, once they take that kind of action, who is to say those in the Obama the Kenyan administration will not be subject to the same thing when they are no longer in office.
The above hissed in response by: Zelsdorf2 ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://biglizards.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 23, 2009 1:23 PM
The following hissed in response by: GW
This really is the crossing of the Rubicon. I've read all of the released memos in detail. They present colorable and reasonable arguments, set forth in great detail and in consideration of existing precedent, that the enhanced interrogation techniques did not fall within the definition of torture in U.S. law or treaty. This is purely and simply the criminalization of a policy difference. It will almost assuredly spin out of control and, indeed, could lead to a rift not seen in America since April 11, 1861.
The above hissed in response by: GW at April 23, 2009 1:56 PM
The following hissed in response by: Geoman
Lies always haunt you.
The Dems and the media lied about Gitmo, torture, rendition, etc. Lied. Intentionally. To get elected. There never was criminal action by anybody. And the Dems knew it all along.
Now the Dems are in power, those that believed the lies are demanding action. If Hitler loses an election, don't you throw him in jail afterwards? But Obama and his crew KNOW THEY LIED about all this stuff.
Now what? On the left they yelp for action. Obama tries to split the baby and release part of the "torture" memos, but it only sinks him in even deeper.
His best bet would be to pardon all former Bush officials now, "in the interest of healing". But then he becomes Gerald Ford to the left.
If it goes to any sort of hearing or trial, the Dems lose. And lose big. Why do you think Cheney is spoiling for this fight? He knows the truth, and only secrecy prevented him from speaking frankly about it. The Dems have lifted that restraint with the release of the memos.
Great heavens - who elected this idiot? I mean, this is really...just...dumb.
The only thing I can think of is that this is an intentional distraction - an attempt avoid scrutiny on all the other awful things the Dems are planning.
The above hissed in response by: Geoman at April 23, 2009 4:23 PM
The following hissed in response by: Tom in CA
Geoman,
Great post, this is exactly how I feel. The left did a great job of creating and maintaining this lie about President Bush and the GWOT. Now they have to support it, with nothing to back it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, no one in the middle that could make a difference is paying attention to the idiotic things Obama is doing. I told a neighbor whose husband is one of highest officers in a Big 4 bank about Obama's 'pitchfork' comment to Bank CEO's. Not only was she clueless, she denied it.
The above hissed in response by: Tom in CA at April 24, 2009 6:10 AM
The following hissed in response by: Dick E
This afternoon on NPR I heard E.J. Dionne and David Brooks (fair and balanced twosome that they are) discuss this issue.
Dionne said the conflict was basically that the left wants to go after everyone who ever (meaning over the last 8 years) had anything to do with enhanced interrogation or its approval, while the right (Cheney) wants to know what results the techniques yielded. Really, that’s what he said.
So how is it a right-wing position to want to know this information? I think I know the answer. But I would be perfectly happy to learn that no useful information at all was obtained. That, at least, would put an end to the controversy over waterboarding.
On the other hand, if we learn that actionable data was gleaned in a significant number of cases, the mantra will just change from “torture doesn’t work” to “torture isn’t reliable.”
The above hissed in response by: Dick E at April 24, 2009 3:15 PM
The following hissed in response by: georgfelis
A far more probable and profitable for the Obama administration strategy would be as follows: Threaten prosecution and bring the Bush administration officials right to the very edge of filing charges… and hold them there. By never actually filing charges, they get to throw mud and dung at the Bush administration for the next couple of years. And the Bush administration officials *cannot* fight back, because anything they say will promptly be bent into pretzels by the press, and matched exhaustively against anything they may have said before in order to “prove” perjury. (See Libby, Scooter).
The above hissed in response by: georgfelis at May 1, 2009 11:41 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)
(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved
)
