Posts Tagged ‘Abu Ghraib’

When Will The Mainstream Media Hold Barack Obama Responsible For Even A Fraction Of The Things They Demonized George Bush Over???

February 11, 2012

Think about how the media immediately tied George Bush to the scandal of the Abu Ghraib photos:

The New Yorker asked in its headline:

Torture at Abu Ghraib: American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?

The Washington Post jumped on Bush, saying in its opening sentence:

A New Yorker article is raising uncomfortable questions for the White House about what President Bush knew about the horrific abuse at Abu Ghraib, when he knew it — and whether he and his top lieutenants bear more responsibility for it than they have acknowledged.

Slate’s title trumpeted:

Locked in Abu Ghraib: The prison scandal keeps getting worse for the Bush administration

Democratic Underground preserved an ABC piece with said title directly linking Abu Ghraib with Bush’s governance in Texas:

Prisoner Abuse Echoes: Texas Case Sheds Light on Abu Ghraib Scandal

Here is a title from the academic left:

`High crimes and misdemeanors': George W. Bush and the sins of Abu Ghraib

The media scolded the Bush administration for trying to claim it wasn’t responsible for the scandal:

When the Abu Ghraib abuse and torture scandal broke in April 2004, the Bush administration, including then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, blamed a few bad apples in one Army unit for acting without higher authority.

And then the media confronted Bush with “Does the buck stop with you or not?” to elicit a “confession”:

President Bush for the first time took a measure of responsibility for the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, during an interview with an Arabic TV network.
 
“Abu Ghraib was a terrible disappointment. And admittedly, I wasn’t there on the site, but I was the Commander-in-Chief of a military where these disgraceful acts took place that sent the absolute wrong image about America and our military,” Mr. Bush said. [...]

The Abu Ghraib scandal exploded in 2004 when photos and videos showing U.S. soldiers humiliating prisoners began to leak out and then were published by news organizations

Now, understand as to that last: what the hell was George Bush supposed to say???  Aren’t you ultimately responsible for this as the President?  Does the buck stop with you or doesn’t it, Mr. President?

The same mainstream media that crawled all over George Bush like stink on poop simply won’t ask Obama that question.

Think about Abu Ghraib: there were a handful of court martials.  The highest ranking officer involved received “non-judicial punishment” for dereliction of duty – which is to say his crime was in not paying enough attention to what was going on under him.  Does anybody truly believe that George Bush was “in” on the goings on within Abu Ghraib?  And the answer – as I documented – is that the media sure wanted you to think he was.

Here’s a couple – not one, but TWO – examples of Barack Obama’s “Abu Ghraib”:

Several weeks ago it came to the world’s attention that a number of Marine snipers were urinating on Taliban corpses.  I write about that here and will be repeating the essence of what I said about that episode in this article.

And now we have this pathetic instance in which Marines are posing with the Nazi “SS” symbol (as in the siegrune of the infamous Schutzstaffel who supervised the murders of 6 million Jews).

Here is the picture of the Marines under Barack Obama as the Commander-in-Chief:

Ten Marines, versus eleven soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib fiasco.  And like Abu Ghraib, we’ve even got a picture.

Here is what a Nazi SS soldier looked like “back in the day”:

There is absolutely no question that men under the command of President Barack Obama are intentionally posing with the Nazi SS symbol that is so abhorrent that it is illegal to display in Germany today.

Where is the mainstream media blaming the Marines who urinated on corpses and the Marines who posed with the SS symbol on Obama???

The media would have erupted in OUTRAGE if these things had happened when George Bush was president.  We would have had

“stories” from the mainstream media until the public understood that this was truly all Bush’s fault.  These “stories” would have come from the highest levels of mainstream media, from ABC News, from the New York Times, etc, etc, etc.  As I document above.

Is Barack Obama a fascist?  You’re damn right he’s a fascist.  I can’t keep up with all of the incredible fascistic things this evil man is doing.  Right now Obama is engaged in a very “Hitler-like” war on the Catholic Church, on religious values and on the American Constitution.  And this right after being slammed down 9-0 for his previous fascist attack against religious freedom.

So where the hell is the mainstream media making the same linkages they made between Obama and his troops that they did with Bush and his troops???

“Hell” needs to be part of the answer: because the mainstream media today are propagandists on the same order that we same from Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda.

Why do we get this hypocritical double standard?

I cited this quote in my article on “the Marine pissers” that hits the nail right on the head:

Bush supported the troops. If the troops did something bad, it reflected on Bush and made him look bad. They were all in this together.

Obama despises the troops and keeps them at arms length. If the troops do something bad, it justifies Obama’s disdain and proves him to be correct in his policies.

Doesn’t that work out swell for the Left?

And since a picture is worth a thousand words, here is video that comes with my previous article “How Do Marines Feel About Obama?  When Silence Is Golden“:

So of course Barack Obama despises the military and can’t be held responsible for something he despises:

In refusing to hand Obama the blame for his “Abu Ghraib” the way they demonized Bush for his, the mainstream media that serves as the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party underscores the reality that Republicans and the military are justifiably connected to one another – and thus Republicans are responsible for the military – but that Democrats and the military ought not to have anything to do with one another. Such that you cannot blame a Democrat commander-in-chief for how the military ostensibly under his command behaves.

Barack Obama looks down on the military with abject contempt; and whereas bad conduct ought to reflect upon a Republican CIC, it merely serves to justify the contempt that Democrats feel for the armed forces of the United States of America.

That wasn’t always the case, of course.  But it most certainly HAS been the case since the late 1960s, with every single president from Jimmy Carter on being an abject slimebag.

Today, if you love your American flag, and if you honor your country on Independence Day, YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN.

Only a patriot can be blamed for what happens in the military, and therefore Barack Obama is exempt from blame.

Of course, that’s not all there is to it: the bottom line is that the same media that demonized George Bush for every single negative thing that happened during his presidency is the same media that is still demonizing George Bush for every single negative thing that is happening during the Obama presidency.

This nation cannot long survive the kind of outrageous lies that are being forced down our throats with a firehose by the mainstream media.

If The Media Were Objective Just Once: Marine Taliban ‘Pissers’ Ought To Be Obama’s Abu Ghraib

January 13, 2012

First of all, here’s the story of the Marines who urinated on Taliban corpses.

Hitting the nail right on the head:

Taliban Pissers are Obama’s Abu Ghraib
Free Republic ^ | 1/12/12 | Obam’s Fault
Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:56:42 PM by Mr. K

If Abu Ghraib was all Bush’s fault, then the the Taliban pissers are all OBAMA’s fault

And everyone in the chain of command on down, just like they blamed Bush.

The way the mainstream media covered the Abu Ghraib “scandal,” you would have thought that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were the ones who were in all the pictures humiliating Iraqi prisoners.

It was simply an unfortunate incident that would never have generated “outrage” across the Muslim world had the media simply done what they would have done if they weren’t the treasonous rat bastards they have become and simply sat on the story as honorable American media would have done before liberals came to so completely own it during the 1960s and the Vietnam years.

But that’s not how the game is played today, is it?

One hitting the nail on the head moment is followed up by another as a commenter who calls himself ClearCase_guy says:

Bush supported the troops. If the troops did something bad, it reflected on Bush and made him look bad. They were all in this together.

Obama despises the troops and keeps them at arms length. If the troops do something bad, it justifies Obama’s disdain and proves him to be correct in his policies.

Doesn’t that work out swell for the Left?

Again, this is so true on so many levels.

As posted on my article, “How Do Marines Feel About Obama?  When Silence Is Golden“:

Many, MANY Marines justifiably have nothing but contempt for Obama.

And it turns out Barack Obama likewise has naked contempt for them and for all of our troops:

Report: Obama Sick And Tired Of Soldiers On Baghdad Visit
January 12th, 2012 (25) Posted By Pat Dollard.

Buzzfeed:

Michael Hastings’ new book, The Operators, jabs at what could be a vulnerable spot for the Obama Administration, the president’s relationship with the troops.

The book describes a visit to Baghdad:

After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.
 
He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers.  He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take fucking pictures with them?”

Pardon that State Department official’s “French”: Obama just rips it right out of the souls of decent people who cannot believe what a verminous weasel he is.

In refusing to hand Obama the blame for his “Abu Ghraib” the way they demonized Bush for his, the mainstream media that serves as the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party underscores the reality that Republicans and the military are justifiably connected to one another – and thus Republicans are responsible for the military – but that Democrats and the military ought not to have anything to do with one another.  Such that you cannot blame a Democrat commander-in-chief for how the military ostensibly under his comand behaves.

Barack Obama looks down on the military with abject contempt; and whereas bad conduct ought to reflect upon a Republican CIC, it merely serves to justify the contempt that Democrats feel for the armed forces of the United States of America.

This is nothing new for Democrats.  JFK and LBJ were the last two Democrats who were honorable patriots.

President Bill Clinton wrote of his “loathing the military” in his weaselling out of his obligation to serve his country.   When you read the letter that Colonol Holmes – who ran the University of Arkansas ROTC Department and who was the recipient of Clinton’s letter – note that this man who was in poor heath due to being a POW of the depraved Imperial Japanese – wrote of his fear of “the imminent danger to our country of a draft-dodger becoming Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

And what happened as a result of that presidency?

Bill Clinton left George Bush with the massive Dotcom bubble collapse. That collapse that happened on Clinton’s watch wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth. And the ONLY reason we don’t talk about that – aside that too many in the media are just as biased and as stupid as you are, Smith – is that Clinton had also GUTTED the Pentegon and intelligence budget, leaving America both weak (Osama bin Laden called Clinton’s America “a paper tiger”) and blind. Clinton did to the CIA budget what he did to the Nasdaq – just wiped it out – and left us exposed to the 9/11 attack.

Osama bin Laden’s words in 1998 following the Clinton fiasco in Somalia where the US pulled out with its tail between its legs: “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”

Here’s a little more about how we have Bill Clinton to thank for the massive 9/11 attack to go on top of his massive DotCom bubble collapse:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

And there’s the blindness that led to the 9/11 attack, combined with the fact that Clinton demonstrated to Osama bin Laden with the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Somalia that the U.S. was just “a paper tiger,” and ripe for a massive attack. That attack was planned, funded – and all the terrrorist assets were in the USA and even trained to fly in American pilot schools- during the Clinton misrule.

During the Bosnian War that followed, Bill Clinton displayed that “loathing the military” by so gutting it that flight crews had to cannibalize other jets and helicopters for parts just to continue flight operations.  It was deplorable.

The next Democrat to follow Bill Clinton was John Kerry.  There was this famous act of treason in 1971 when Kerry falsely demonized his “fellow” troops:

MATTERA: Do you think this crop of anti-war activists, do you there’ll be any frauds like Al Hubbard?

KERRY: I have no idea. I hope not.

MATTERA: Do you think that they will make slanderous accusations–accusing the troops of raping women, pillaging villaging, just like you did to the Fulbright committee?

KERRY: Uh, I didn’t make those.

MATTERA: You didn’t?

Audio clip, John Kerry, 4/22/71: [They told the stories at times] they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry claims Winter Soldier Investigations were substantiated by further investigation.

MATTERA: Did you ever verify those?

KERRY (crosstalk): I’ve been misquoted about that hundreds of times.

MATTERA: So you never substantiated those charges before you–

KERRY: I proposed–I gave them to the committee because I felt that they ought to be investigated and that’s exactly what I said. These are the–many of those charges, incidentally, were subsequently verified by different entities.

Slate: No criminal charges were filed as a result of any of the [Army’s Criminal Investigative Division] investigations into Winter Soldier.

Then there were all the lies Kerry told while he was in Vietnam to deceitfully make himself a “hero” and all the false claims he made when he got home:

Look at the letter that some 250 of John Kerry’s fellow Swift Boat veterans signed against him (to contrast with about a dozen Swift Boat veterans who support him). Their real outrage wasn’t over Kerry’s supposed “valor,” but rather against what he did when he came home. John Kerry willingly and publicly said of his own free will things that men like John McCain wouldn’t say even in the face of torture. And when John Kerry tried to defend his anti-American and anti-American-soldier statements by pointing to his record, the Swift Boat veterans demonstrated that he had misrepresented his record in provable ways beyond his infamous “Christmas in Cambodia” whopper.

Maybe John Kerry deserved all his decorations, and maybe he didn’t, but one thing is for sure: he did lie about several aspects of his record. And he was forced to publicly retract some of his most vitriolic statements as “the words of an angry young man.”

John Kerry had a paltry few men to testify about how honorable he was, versus a whopping load load of veterans who said he was unfit for command. Kerry literally resorted to trying to claim that men who were actually against him were for him.

A dozen of John Kerry’s Swiftboat “band of brothers” were for him versus two hundred and fifty who told the truth about him.  Here’s a representative sample of the type of character of those dozen “good” men:

John Kerry’s ‘Band of Brothers’ Includes Child Porn Pervert

John Kerry Enabler Stripped Of His Bogus Silver Star (Kerry’s Should Be NEXT)

John Kerry is a vile human being and a traitor to his country and to the United States military.

And then there is Barack Obama.

The Democrat Party continued to prove it is the party of treason in America with its deceitful opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); its opposition to the Patriot Act; its opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; its opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; its demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; its opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists.  I could go on.  The facts since proved what treasonous piles of slime the Democrats were in opposing these things given how even Obama had to act when a Democrat actually had to GOVERN rather than simply treacherously backstab.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

Like John Kerry, the Democrats were for the war before they were against it.  Here is a display of the hall of shame that is the most prominent Democrats say-one-thing-then-lie-about-it betrayal of George Bush and of the nation at war he served as Commander-in-Chief:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm 
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

… Just in case you wonder why I am so angry with Democrats and so angry with their propaganda wing a.k.a. the mainstream media.

Btw, it turns out that this isn’t the first time an American soldier urinated on a dead enemy “soldier.”

On Keith Olbermann’s Deceitful and Depraved Attack of Dick Cheney

May 25, 2009

I remember exactly what I was doing the morning of September 11, 2001.  I was a grad student at the time, getting ready for my first class with the television running in the background.  Just before the first large passenger plane crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center something caught my attention just in time to see it happen live.  [Note: please see the update at the conclusion for a correction].

And the day froze into shock, numbness, dismay, terror, and a rising anger.

The broadcasters were talking to themselves about whether this was an accident, or an intentional attack.  I didn’t need them to tell me what it was: like many other Americans, I knew exactly what had just happened.

And then the second plane struck the second tower.  And shortly afterward the cameras began to catch specks falling out of the towers that turned out to be Americans throwing themselves out of top story windows to their deaths in order to avoid the even more agonizing death by burning.

President George Bush had been President for just over six months.  But I would have felt EXACTLY the same sense of horror and outrage whether Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or George Bush was President.

It wasn’t about being a member of a political party, or who was President or what party he was from; it was about being an American whose country had just been attacked.

That’s just no longer the case, though.  I no longer feel that way.

Barack Obama’s constant unrelenting blaming of the Bush administration for virtually every problem under the sun was bad enough; Obama’s description of Bush “torture” and his releasing of CIA memos intended to politically hurt the Bush administration at the expense of informing our enemies exactly how we would and would not interrogate them was bad enough; House Speaker Nancy Peolosi’s demagoguery of the Bush administration over its “torture” and her subsequent lies that she herself had been informed about such “torture” and done nothing was bad enough; but it just never seems to end.

But the following example of Bush Derangement Syndrome finally sent me over the top:

Transcript of Keith Olbermann’s remarks on MSNBC:

The delusional claims he has made this day could be proved by documentation and firsthand testimony to be the literal and absolute truth, and he still, himself, would be wrong because the America he sought to impose upon the world and upon its own citizens, the dark, hateful place of Dick Cheney`s own soul, the place he to this hour defends, and to this day prefers, is a repudiation of all that our ancestors, all that for which our brave troops of two years ago and two minutes ago, have sacrificed and fought.

Olbermann acknowledges that EVEN if Dick Cheney is telling the truth and his own liberal allies are lying, it doesn’t matter.  Because he thinks Cheney and his vision for America are evil.  So truth be damned.  That is the warped mind of the true ideologue.

And he then uses a rhetorical flourish to indicate that our troops have suffered for Cheney’s hateful vision.

What Olbermann, evil liar that he truly is, fails to mention is that our “brave troops” who “have sacrificed and fought” actually think JUST LIKE Cheney and DON’T THINK like Olbermann.

I can cite the political polls of our soldiers to show that they overwhelmingly supported the conservative agenda and opposed the liberal one.  We find that 68% of active duty military personnel supported John McCain, versus only 23% for Barack Obama.  But it’s better to simply let you see another story that features a video as to how our Marines felt about George Bush versus how they felt about Barack Obama.

Another example occurred just this morning on The View, with two veterans who lost legs to roadside bombs answering Barbara Walters’ “was it worth it” question by saying without hesitation that they would both return to the fight if they could.  Barbara Walters was clearly stunned by their answer, and didn’t say another word.  Our veterans are NOT victims of Bush or Cheney or anyone else; and every attempt to portray them as such is a contemptible lie.

If Keith Olbermann had even a shred of personal honesty, integrity, character, or virtue, he would not have dragged American soldiers into his hateful polemic given that they themselves are on the very side that Olbermann so utterly despises.  But Olbermann doesn’t have any honesty, integrity, character, or virtue.

So he warps the men and women who supported George Bush and Dick Cheney so overwhelmingly into victims.

Olbermann says:

Gee, thanks for being motivated by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans to go so far as to take a serious second look. And thank you, sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11. For that attack, sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best, you are guilty of malfeasance and eternally lasting stupidity. At worst, sir, in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent.

Again, if Keith Olbermann had so much as a shred of personal or professional honesty, he wouldn’t say something like this.

Let’s review the list: 1) In 1993 Bill Clinton ran from Somalia after a battle with Islamic insurgents that left 18 American servicemen dead; 2) Also in 1993 the US suffered a terrorist attack in the form of the first World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and wounded more than 1000 Americans; 3) In 1995 the US suffered its first domestic terrorist attack at the Oklahoma Federal Building that left 168 Americans dead; 4) In 1996 19 American servicemen were killed in a Saudi Arabian terrorist bombing of the US military Khobar Towers barracks; 5) In 1998 there was a simultaneous terrorist bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people; 6) In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists, leaving 17 American servicemen dead.

There may well have been more, but that is all I can remember.

Most of these attacks were revealed to have clearly been done under the direction of Osama bin Laden by his al Qaeda terrorist organization.  In spite of this fact, President Clinto repeatedly passed up on opportunities to take bin Laden into custody even when Somalia literally offered his head on a platter.

How can Keith Olberman in good conscience so blame Bush and Cheney for 9/11 when the Clinton administration had never taken terrorism seriously themselves?  But Olbermann doesn’t have a good conscience.  He is a truly depraved human being.

Bill Clinton failed to take 9/11 seriously for the same reason George Bush failed to take it seriously in the six months of his administration preceding the 9/11 attack: because we hadn’t been hit hard enough yet.  Clinton should have learned from the attacks America suffered throughout his entire presidency; and Bush should have paid attention to Clinton’s disastrous track record.

Olbermann said:

You saved no one, sir. If the classified documents you seek released really did detail plots other than those manufactured by drowning men in order to get it to stop, or if they truly did know plans beyond the laughable ones you and President Bush have already revealed, hijackers without passports, targeting a building whose name Mr. Bush could not remember, clowns who thought they could destroy airports by dropping matches in fuel pipelines 30 miles away, men who planned to attack a military base dressed as pizza delivery boys, forgetting that every man there was armed, and today, the four would-be synagogue bombers, one of whom turns out to keep bottles of urine in his apartment, and is on schizophrenia medicine.

Olbermann is simply lying here.  CIA director George Tenent – who was appointed to his position by Bill Clinton – said that the enhanced interrogations by themselves were “Worth more than the FBI, CIA and NSA put together.” Career intelligence professional and CIA Director General Michael Hayden said, “fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those [harsh] interrogations.” In fact, President Obama’s very own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” A Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005 notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques.”

So the man popping schizophrenia medicine and washing it down with his own bottled urine is none other than Keith Olbermann and everyone at MSNBC and everyone who watches the network.  It certainly isn’t Dick Cheney.

Olbermann saves his ugliest and most hateful remarks for last:

You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans. You were negligent before 9/11. Your response to your complicity by omission on 9/11 was panic and shame and insanity, and lying this country into a war that did nothing but kill 4,299 more of us. We will take no further instructions from you, sir. And let me again quote Oliver Cromwell to you, Mr. Cheney. “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go.”

I’ve written about other things that Keith Olbermann and his “guests” have said.  Only very recently Janeane Garofalo said:

This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

And there was Keith Olbermann and Michael Musto engaging in about as hateful of an attack as one can possibly imagine against Miss California Carrie Prejean for the simple reason that they despise her right to express her own views about an issue that most Californians and most Americans agree with her over.

Keith Olbermann is a vain, petty, vindictive, vicious, hateful, and truly ugly human being.  And MSNBC would do far better broadcasting in place of pro-terrorist al Jazeera than it is doing here.  Both networks run basically the same message.

But Keith Olbermann’s rant against Dick Cheney and every conservative who agrees with him rose to such a level of hatred, such a level of vicious, bitter, ugly, deceitful, and frankly evil rhetoric, that it transcends anything I have ever heard.

Right now, liberals like Keith Olbermann are teeing off on conservatives for waterboarding when we now learn that liberals like Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats were fully briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed,” and neither said or did anything to prevent such techniques.  And even the very liberal new CIA Director under Obam0, Leon Panetta, essentially says Pelosi is lying.  How are their attacks now anything but partisan demagoguery?

And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail.  As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.

For instance, President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate.  Given that President Bush used the technique against only three individuals shortly after the worst disaster in US history, how is Obama any different?  In fact he’s worse, because Bush and Cheney never demagogued the issue as Obama has repeatedly done.

Obama demonized Bush over the Bush policy on rendition.  But now this demagogue is quietly continuing to carry out the same rendition policy – abducting terrorist suspects and sending them to countries that will use harsh interrogation methods – even as he congratulates himself in front of a fawning media for his being better than Bush.  But Obama isn’t better than Bush and Cheney; he’s worse.  Because he’s a hypocrite and a demagogue.

In the words of the New York Times, military commissions was “a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.”  But now the hypocrite and demagogue is going to quietly use them himself.

And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign.  How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground?  Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher.  Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.

Obama decided against the release of the remainder of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos.  But only because he had to bow to the reality of the massive resitance against his decision to release them and the consequences such a stupid and depraved act would have had both for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and for Democrats at home.  In electing not to release them, Obama took the SAME position that Bush/Cheney had taken.  Obama is not better than Bush or Cheney; he’s worse.  They didn’t waiver and pander before going back on their decision out of the selfish interests of political survival.  They were consistent in their determination to do the right thing.

Obama has idiotically promised he would close Gitmo, but even his own party now realizes how foolish that would be and has twice denied him funding to do so until he come up with a plan that makes some kind of sense.  Obama wrapped himself up in puffed-up, posturing self-righteousness, but the reality is that Bush was forced to confront the same unsolvable dilemmas.  The only difference was that Bush was wiser than Barack Obama in recognizing the problems that made a closure of Gitmo nearly impossible; and that Bush – unlike Obama – was never a pandering demagogue.

Again, Obama isn’t one iota better than Bush or Cheney.  He’s worse.

Not that any of these FACTS matter to liberals.  Because far too many of them are exactly like Keith Olbermann: even if the facts support conservatives, it doesn’t matter.  Such liberals are completely false, vile people who routinely treat the truth with as much contempt as Olbermann does.

I said earlier that I no longer feel the same way about my country that I did following 9/11.  I wish it were not true, but the constant unrelenting barrage of lies, hypocristy, demonization, and demagoguery from the left – particularly on national security issues – have left me with an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth.  And following so many years of such hateful tactics, I fear that if we are attacked again, that I will react politically, rather than patriotically.  I wish it weren’t true, but there it is.

Update: I have since realized that the first attack was not covered live, and film footage of the first airplane was not made available until later.  What I would have seen was video footage of smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center shortly following the first attack, finally followed by live footage of the 2nd plane strike.  I attempted to describe from memory what I had seen 8 years ago, and it turns out that my memory was not perfect.

Between Rock and Hard Place: Hoping That Weasel Obama Breaks Ridiculous Promises

May 16, 2009

It’s not an easy position for a country to be in: we have a choice between having a craven liar for president, or having a president who keeps utterly stupid and immoral promises that undermine the country at every single turn.

This week, Obama is choosing to be a lying weasel who demagogued George Bush’s policies only to adopt those selfsame policies when it became evident just how truly asinine his own ideas were.

First, we hear that Obama decided to break his previous bright idea about releasing terrorists into the United States.  Thanks for not making me live next door to a jihadist murderer, Barry.  Much obliged.

Then Obama breaks his promise not to release Abu Ghraib pictures that by all accounts would have led to revenge-killings of American servicemen by nose-out-of-joint terrorists.  Again, appreciate it, Barry.  Keep up your lying ways so we don’t have to suffer under the most dumbass and immoral policies of any president in history.

And now we’ve got Obama breaking his word about giving terrorists the same rights as every American citizen (you know, the ones that they’re trying to murder).

President Barack Obama, who was one of the Bush administration’s sharpest critics concerning the military tribunals used to prosecute detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility, may be backing away from his election promise to abolish them.

Last week, a story in the New York Times reported that the Obama administration is now likely to retain the military commission system, but in a modified form. According to the Times, the announcement regarding this stunning about-face could come as early as next week.

“The more they look at it,” one official told The Times, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

As an indication of the high priority the military tribunals had for Obama, he requested on Inauguration Day a 120-day delay of all trials in progress. Two days later, the new president signed an order to close the Guantanamo facility itself within a year. Obama planned to transfer the detainees’ cases to civilian courts in the United States where the prisoners would enjoy the constitutional rights, albeit undeserved, of American citizens.

But the president, who during the election said, once elected, he would “reject the Military Commissions Act,” soon encountered hard, cold reality. In Obama’s case, his second thoughts about closing Guantanamo’s military commission system, which he once termed “an enormous failure”, arose after having reviewed the files of the 241 terrorists still held there.

Most of the remaining prisoners, he discovered, are hard-core al-Qaeda members who are too dangerous to be released. And if tried in a regular American court of law, it is estimated that 50 to 100 of them would be acquitted. The problem Obama failed to understand before making his rash promise is that there is not sufficient evidence to obtain their convictions in civilian courts.

There are also other headaches that would arise from civilian trials in the United States, which would not reflect favourably on the Obama administration. One is that the Guantanamo terrorists, including some involved in the 9/11 attack, would be able to grandstand and promote their cause in the courtroom, since now they would have an audience augmented by television cameras. Under the military system in Guantanamo, the trials are closed to the public and the cameras are absent. Reporters are, however, present in the courtroom.

Other problems concern the possibility of civilian judges throwing out key evidence if they deem it was obtained by questionable methods. Intelligence agencies would also be faced with the nightmarish prospect of having to reveal in public how they got their evidence (secret information is not revealed in open court in the Guantanamo legal system). In a civilian courtroom, terrorists would also take advantage of the legal right guaranteed to American citizens to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

But the biggest problem concerning stateside civilian trials for the Obama administration is what to do with the terrorists if they are acquitted, as surely dozens of them would be. Many of them cannot be returned to their country of origin because they will be tortured and possibly executed. Other countries, including those in Europe, are, with good reason, balking at accepting them, regarding the prisoners primarily as an American problem.

“If the detainees are not dangerous, then I don’t see any problem in the USA taking them in,” said one German politician.

The happiest people in all this would be the acquitted terrorists themselves. Some of the Guantanamo prisoners have openly admitted to their American captors their intention to return to terrorism when released. Other former Guantanamo detainees have already done so. So for those still wanting to kill as many Americans as possible, they would love to be set loose in the United States.

THANK YOU, Barry Hussein!  Now there’s less of a chance that these monsters will be able to beat our easy-to-beat legal system so they won’t be able to murder more Americans!  You’re a prince of the realm for breaking your word on that one.  Thank you for demagoguing an issue only to backstab and lie to your idiot supporters!

And, we learn in an AP article about the same broken promise that this means that Obama will be breaking ANOTHER stupid and immoral promise to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility that kept prevented these monsters from harming Americans in the first place.

Obama could roll back the January 2010 deadline, which he imposed on his second day in office. That could throw in doubt his campaign promise to shut down the prison

Thank God we’ve got such a liar for a president.  In the case of our Fool-in-Chief, it’s better to have him breaking one stupid promise after another than keeping one stupid promise after another.

Of course, sometimes having a Liar-in-Chief gets pretty confusing: such as when Obama promises to “look forward rather than backward” rather than criminalize Bush officials, only to almost immediately break that promise by subsequently saying he’d turn them over to his Justice Department, only to YET AGAIN go back on himself by saying he didn’t want to do the thing that he earlier said he’d do before saying he wouldn’t do that thing…

Anyway, the current situation is that Barry Hussein is finally keeping his fool mouth shut by staying out of the whole conversation of prosecuting Bush officials for waterboarding while Nancy Pelosi twists in the wind as a result of her own damn repeated lies.

Liar or fool.  In the case of our current president, we clearly have both in one teleprompter-clinging package.

Obama: Don’t Forget To Prosecute Nancy Pelosi For Waterboarding

April 25, 2009

The Obama administration completely reversed itself within the span of a day over its decision to throw the Bush administration officials to the dogs over their decisions in trying to keep this country safe following 9/11.

He went from:

April 20: (AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

To:

April 21: President Obama left open the door Tuesday for charges to be brought against Bush administration lawyers who justified harsh interrogation techniques, though he continued to argue that CIA agents who used those tactics should not be prosecuted.

And that is clearly the result of George Soros, Moveon.org, and the radical left.

Which fully qualifies this as a political witch hunt.  Obama had previously indicated he wanted to “look forward rather than backward.”  His mind was changed for him by leftwing ideologues.

The left have always been cowards who said one thing when it was convenient or expedient, only to denounce the very positions they once held the moment it became convenient or expedient to do so.  For instance, prominent Democrats fell all over themselves to appear tough on Iraq, on Saddam Hussein, and on their demand that the United States eliminate the WMD threat his regime posed.  Fortunately, a number of these statements have been preserved and collected (see Snopes.com; Truthorfiction.com; and Freedomagenda.com for a few examples).  And then THESE VERY SAME DEMOCRATS proceeded to attack President Bush for making the very same statements and pursuing the very same policies they themselves had made and demanded.  They claimed that Bush was a liar when THEY themselves were the liars.  And the mainstream media allowed them to get away with their cowardice, betrayal, and hypocrisy.

And now they are at it again.

Nancy Pelosi says she was never informed about the harsh interrogation techniques that she and her fellow Democrats are now demonizing:

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding — but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using “enhanced” interrogation techniques

“In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, we’re not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used,” she told reporters today.

The problem is that she is a flat-out liar.  From a 2007 Washington post story entitled, “Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002: In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say“:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

And, just as before, Democrats changed their spots the moment it became convenient for them to do so:

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 — by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding — did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey’s confirmation hearings for attorney general.

And Nancy Pelosi is a leader in the field of supporting something until she opposed it.  Following 9/11, there was a real fear that we would be hit again, and thousands – perhaps millions – more Americans could die.  Democrats like Nancy Pelosi supported these necessary measures.  And now she’s demagoguing the people who put the protective measures she supported in place.

Let me provide a few specific examples, using the examples of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi – who have placed themselves at the forefront of the attempt to demonize the Bush administration’s war on terror.

Hillary Clinton: who mockingly said that she didn’t find Dick Cheney “a reliable source of information,” and who “came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar” in saying that accepting General David Petraeus’ report required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisers plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America’s resolve and commitment.  Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.  And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard.  You are either with America in our time of need or you are not. — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate, September 12, 2001

“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.  Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.” — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, September 13, 2001

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.  Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.” — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002

Hillary Clinton was for that war before she was against it.

Nancy Pelosi:

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.  Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.  There’s no question about that.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on “Meet The Press”
November 17, 2002

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.  I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.  …  Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.  Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777

Allow me to introduce one more official, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for the sake of displaying naked Democratic chutzpah:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction.  It has refused to take those steps.  That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

Now I believe myself … that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” — Sen. Harry Reid, April 18, 2007

And, of course, the surge strategy was the VERY THING that brought us success in Iraq.

Harry Reid was in favor of winning that war before he was in favor of surrendering.  And then he blamed Bush.

Cowards.

Hypocrites.

Demoagogues.

Incoming President Eisenhower didn’t prosecute FDR officials for war crimes.  He didn’t prosecute FDR for interring Japanese-Americans in camps.  He didn’t prosecute FDR for firebombing Dresden.  Nor did he prosecute Truman for firebombing Tokyo or for dropping two atomic bombs on civilian-populated targets.

Nixon didn’t prosecute Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs or for his role in getting the United States into Vietnam.  Nor did he prosecute Lyndon Baines Johnson for his own massive role in perpetuating the Vietnam War.

Right now Obama has released more photographs of events that occurred at Abu Ghraib to further incriminate and attack Bush.  But Bush is no more responsible for Abu Ghraib than Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the Mai Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968.

President George W. Bush – whose administration is now being criminalized for being Republican – did not criminally prosecute Bill Clinton or Clinton officials for their massive expansion of the “extraordinary rendition” program.  If Democrats want to prosecute people for writing memos, how about prosecuting the people who wrote this one?  And let’s not forget that Bill Clinton should likewise be prosecuted for his decision to launch missiles at what turned out to be an aspirin factory while attempting to distract the country in “wag the dog” manner during the growing Monica Lewinsky scandal.

This is a naked political hit job.  And prosecuting the opposition power after an election – besides having never before been done in American history – will guarantee that this country ends up as just another banana republic.

If anyone is going to prosecute any Bush Administration officials for crimes, just make sure that Bill Clinton and his officials along with Nancy Pelosi are standing in the dock with them.

The last thing that needs to be said is this: If Barack Obama goes ahead with this political attack, and prosecutes Bush officials while ignoring the CIA personnel who actually COMMITTED the acts of (so-called) “torture,” then let him also write a letter of apology to every SS Nazi who was prosecuted for HIS role in war crimes in spite of the fact that “they were just following orders.”  Let him state that the Nuremburg defense is alive and well under his administration.  And let him categorically state that he will allow millions of Americans to die in a terrorist attack rather than cause a single terrorist any physical discomfort.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers