Fox News host asks torture-backer John Yoo: ‘Is there a manhood problem’ with Obama?

[DonViejo]

By David Edwards
Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:09 EDT

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on Monday talked with John Yoo, the former DOJ Office of Legal Counsel deputy who wrote memos arguing President George W. Bush had unlimited power to use torture on detainees, to find out if President Barack Obama had a “manhood problem” when it came to dealing with terrorists.

Kilmeade began the interview on Fox & Friends by asking Yoo if he was outraged that NBC host David Gregory had asserted that part of President George W. Bush’s legacy was failing to deal with extremism in a sustainable way.

“It’s like saying firefighters are responsible for fire, or during the Cold War, it was our fault and not the Soviet’s fault,” Yoo argued, reminding Kilmeade that the Bush administration had invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

“I worry that this administration has let its foot off the gas pedal in the war on terrorism, and is actually allowing al Qaeda to rebound,” he added. “I think now… what’s going on is that we are withdrawing from Iraq, we are withdrawing from Afghanistan, we are allowing Islamic extremists to get back into power, and restore the network that we spent so much time destroying.”

Yoo reflected on aggressive actions from Russia and China, and said that Obama “may think he’s hitting singles and doubles” with his foreign policy, “but I worry he’s standing there at the plate and watching third strikes go by.”

“Is there a manhood problem as David Brooks brought up as this president is perceived in the Middle East?” Kilmeade wondered.

Yoo said he wasn’t sure if it was because of the president’s “manhood,” but Obama was pursuing a “passive foreign policy that worries me.”

“American withdrawal from the world is going to have terrible costs on the world and on the United States,” he declared.

Watch the video below from Fox News’ Fox & Friends, broadcast April 29, 2014.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/29/fox-news-host-asks-torture-backer-john-yoo-is-there-a-manhood-problem-with-obama/

###

Posted with permission

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. Kilmeade is a bloody-minded, insufferable twit. n/t

[Gothmog]

2. John Yoo is a disgrace to the legal profession

Yoo is a really bad lawyer

[Jesus Malverde]

3. Another criminal that should be in jail.

All the neocon scum are crawling out from their rocks.

Silly to defend the administration from people they should have put in jail to begin with.

[kelliekat44]

4. Yes, it has always been about "penis" politics, hasn't it? The gun as the extension and war

as the stimulant.

[ck4829]

5. Ah, they're in "Obama is an appeaser" mode today. They'll be back to "Obama is a warmonger"

in a week.

[Coventina]

6. Sickening and sexist.

Where to even start with this claptrap?

What major terrorist attack has happened on Obama's watch?

Aaaand, what major terrorist attack happened on W.'s?

Who took out OBL?

Aaand, exactly what part of any of those things were done by a penis?

I have nothing but contempt for both Fox and Yoo.

[JHB]

7. Two cases of Woim Syndrome...

...the vicarious thrill felt at overt displays of power (as long as you identify as "on the team" of the one making the display). These guys are suffering deprivation symptoms and want another hit, and are lashing out at the one depriving them of the dose they feel entitled to.

Named for the toady to Butch the Bully in the Our Gang/Little Rascals film shorts.

[Brother Buzz]

8. A glimpse into John Yoo's twisted logic (dated)

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system

Jon Carroll
January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.