Glenn Greenwald: The Vindication (by Barack Obama) of Dick Cheney

[Better Believe It]

The Vindication (by Barack Obama) of Dick Cheney
by Glenn Greenwald
January 18, 2011

In the early months of Obama's presidency, the American Right did to him what they do to every Democratic politician: they accused him of being soft of defense (specifically "soft on Terror") and leaving the nation weak and vulnerable to attack. But that tactic quickly became untenable as everyone (other than his hardest-core followers) was forced to acknowledge that Obama was embracing and even expanding -- rather than reversing -- the core Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism. As a result, leading right-wing figures began lavishing Obama with praise -- and claiming vindication -- based on Obama's switch from harsh critic of those policies (as a candidate) to their leading advocate (once in power).

As early as May, 2009, former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith wrote in The New Republic that Obama was not only continuing Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but was strengthening them -- both because he was causing them to be codified in law and, more important, converting those policies from right-wing dogma into harmonious bipartisan consensus. Obama's decision "to continue core Bush terrorism policies is like Nixon going to China," Goldsmith wrote. Last October, former Bush NSA and CIA Chief Michael Hayden -- one of the most ideological Bush officials, whose confirmation as CIA Chief was opposed by then-Sen. Obama on the ground he had overseen the illegal NSA spying program --gushed with praise for Obama: "there's been a powerful continuity between the 43rd and the 44th president." James Jay Carafano, a homeland-security expert at the Heritage Foundation, told The New York Times' Peter Baker last January: "I don’t think it's even fair to call it Bush Lite. It's Bush. It's really, really hard to find a difference that's meaningful and not atmospheric."

Those are the nation's most extreme conservatives praising Obama's Terrorism policies. And now Dick Cheney himself -- who once led the "soft on Terror" attacks -- is sounding the same theme. In an interview last night with NBC News, Cheney praised Obama for continuing his and Bush's core approach to Terrorism.

Obama has won the War on Terror debate -- for the American Right. And as Dick Cheney's interview last night demonstrates, they're every bit as appreciative as they should be.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/18-1


-------------------------------------------

NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY SITS DOWN WITH JAMIE GANGEL IN HIS FIRST INTERVIEW SINCE HIS HEART SURGERY LAST JULY

The Interview Will Air On “Today” Tuesday, January 18 and an Excerpt Will Air Tonight On “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams”

CHENEY EXCLUSIVE/EXCERPTS

DICK CHENEY:

He obviously has been through the fires of becoming President and having to make decisions and live with the consequences. And it's different than being a candidate. When he was candidate he was all for closing Gitmo. He was very critical of what we'd done on the counterterrorism area to protect America from further attack and so forth.

I think he's-- in terms of a lot of the terrorism policies-- the early talk, for example, about prosecuting people in the CIA who've been carrying out our policies-- all of that's fallen by the wayside. I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience. And part of that experience was the Democrats having a terrible showing last election.

JAMIE GANGEL:

You said you believe President Obama has made America less safe. That he's actually raised the risk of attack. Do you still feel that way?

DICK CHENEY:

Well, when I made that comment, I was concerned that the counterterrorism policies that we'd put in place after 9/11 that had kept the nation safe for over seven years were being sort of rapidly discarded. Or he was going to attempt to discard them. . . . As I say, I think he's found it necessary to be more sympathetic to the kinds of things we did.

http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=3285&NewsAreaId=2


-------------------------------------------




Obama uses Bush plan for terror war
Includes tactics he had criticized
By Eli Lake
September 9, 2010

As the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, much of President Obama's counterterrorism policies and his understanding of executive power closely hew to the last administration, which he criticized as a candidate for the White House.

On issues ranging from the government's detention authority to a program to kill al Qaeda terrorist suspects, even if they are American citizens, Mr. Obama has consolidated much of the power President George W. Bush asserted after Sept. 11 in the waging of the U.S. war against terror.

"It can fairly be said that the Bush administration made torture the law of the land and the Obama administration is making impunity for torture the law of the land," said Ben Wizner, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney ....

"You've got state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram ," Mr. Hayden said,( Michael Hayden, CIA Director under George W. Bush) listing the continuities. "And although it is slightly different, Obama has been as aggressive as President Bush in defending prerogatives about who he has to inform in Congress for executive covert action."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/9/obama-uses-bush-plan-for-terror-war/?page=1

[Luminous Animal]

1. K & R

[krabigirl]

2. Yes, bush and Cheney must be very pleased with Obama.

[molly77]

91. The clintons and bushes are still running the show

Please note all the clinton retreads in the Obama administration. An article in Vanity Fair stated that Rahm Emmanuel had a gizmo on his desk that allowed him to watch the president at all times.Wonder if the new chief of staff will have one too. Obama's job is to make speeches , smile at his wife and children and not cause any problems. Look at the photographs of the Obamas and compare them to when they took office.Just read that prince william and kate will not invite the Obamas to their wedding. I think all the clintonistas should be fired.The money raised for Haiti by the clinton bush team needs to be released. Those people are hijacking the world.

[Robb]

3. Food for thought here, especially the last bit.

I mean, we know the Washington Times could care less about civil liberties and the ACLU. Their agenda is crystal clear.

Greenwald's heart is probably in the right place. Strange bedfellows, indeed. K&R.

[ProSense]

4. Dick Cheney says he's been vindicated, Greenwald agrees.

Quoting Cheney and the Washington Times?

This reads more like the vindication of Dick Cheney by Glenn Greenwald.

[sabrina 1]

11. Cheney approves of Obama's foreign policy.

Of course, being the evil man he is, who believes that killing and torturing people is absolutely justified, he tries to take credit for Obama's policies, claiming that Obama has come to see the light.

If you read vindication for Cheney into that article, I would suggest you read it again.

It is an absolute condemnation of what are now Cheney-approved war crimes and any Democrat who does not join in that condemnation needs to explain why war crimes committed under a Democratic Administration are somehow different (Cheney doesn't think so) than the crimes committed under under the letter 'R'.

Can you explain it?

We didn't NEED Cheney to point out how wrong these policies are. But the man has to have his say I guess and wants to take credit for the policies while he grudgingly gives credit to this president for implementing his policies.

Is there some reason why the 'left' is supposed to now be pro-war and pro-torture? Did I miss a memo somewhere?

[ProSense]

13. The article is a lame attempt

at shame and claiming that Cheney has been vindicated is absurd.

Being in the process of trying to reverse a policy isn't condoning the policy.

[sabrina 1]

20. 'Trying to reverse the process'

Have you been paying attention to what is going on in Afghanistan at all? The expansion of that useless war into Pakistan and Lebanon? The daily slaughter of innocent civilians, the continuation of the torture policies, the backing of corrupt regimes where U.S. tax dollars are going to fund their corrupt life styles while the American people are falling further and further into poverty?

Afghan village devastated by Nato strike



Tell your story to some of those people about how these policies are being reversed. Explain to them how they can get their dead children back after the job of reversing all of this is done! See if THEY, (and they are the only ones who count in all of this, although you'd never know it on this democratic board since we elected democrats) agree with your 'pragmatic' assessment of how many of THEIR children ought to die before we are ready to leave them alone.

How many have we murdered so far? Tortured? How many each day, including today?

Do you know any Americans who support all of this who would be willing to sacrifice THEIR family under the bombs while Obama works it all out? Would any of our illustrious leaders be so willing to let this continue for ANY reason, if it meant that their families, rather than the 'brown people's' families were the ones who had to die?

All of it is a horrendous, brutal and vicious crime against humanity and no one is trying to end it, they are escalating and expanding it. Each day it continues, only adds to the crimes. And any attempt to excuse it is despicable.

Here's how you end it. You pack up and leave and declare the Bush Adminstration to be under investigation for various war crimes. But that's not what the Empire had in mind and neither did this president.

Cheney DOES feel vindicated, and why wouldn't he? And who made it possible for him to feel that way? No investigations, we're 'moving forward' on war crimes, and his policies have not been stopped, as many have been saying for a long time. So how can Democrats ever prosecute HIM and his gang of criminals, when they are doing exactly the same thing?

[ProSense]

21. More rhetoric

Have you been paying attention to what is going on in Afghanistan at all? The expansion of that useless war into Pakistan and Lebanon? The daily slaughter of innocent civilians, the continuation of the torture policies, the backing of corrupt regimes where U.S. tax dollars are going to fund their corrupt life styles while the American people are falling further and further into poverty?

Where is the proof that the administration condones torture?

Have you read the reports about Sudan?

The Presidency, any U.S. Presidency, is never pretty, but to claim that President Obama, who inherited the mess created by Bush and Cheney, is somehow vindicating them because things haven't been fully reversed in two years is absurd.

[sabrina 1]

37. I really wish you would do your own research

Rendition Program to Continue Under Obama's Watch

U.S. Says Rendition to Continue, but With More Oversight

Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama

There's lots more but I think that is enough to answer your question.

I think it should go without saying that you don't send helpless and most of the time innocent people without charges, without trial, to brutal regimes to be tortured, if you 'don't believe in torture'. Do you? Letting OTHER people do the dirty work for you doesn't let you claim you 'don't believe in torture'.

And, if you 'don't believe in torture' you work hard to get justice for the victims of torture.

You certainly don't do this:

ACLU Report: Obama Enshrining Bush-Era Torture Policies

According to a report by the ACLU, the current White House has not just failed to meaningfully follow through on its promises, but has also taken abusive policies, and, as shown in the case of targeted and interminable detentions, eroded civil rights to unprecedented levels.

No, it's not pleasant to have to admit. We wasted so much time and money and energy trying to get the rule of law restored in this country. We'd like to ignore the huge failure we were engaged in, it would FEEL better, but Cheney has a lot to be happy about sadly and that is a fact. We, otoh, have been royally screwed, although not close to the way the tortured victims of these policies have been. We failed those victims. But at the very least I will never, ever condone what is being done to them.



Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who condone torture and the murder of civilians with weapons that are flown from so far away they do not ever have to see the crimes they committed.

I worry about people like this little girl. We are responsible for what our government does and even if they can't be stopped because so many of the American people condone what they are doing depending on which party is doing it, at the very least I do not have to defend it, even if it is my party, no all the more reason not to defend it.

[ProSense]

39. From the ACLU link

<...>

Although the ACLU applauds the administration's condemnation of the torture and rendition programs instituted under Bush, it says these positive steps are overwhelmed by what remains uncorrected and unaddressed. Using the CIA's destruction of 92 interrogation tapes as an example, the ACLU says that an investigation into the incident - which was approved by a CIA official and is purported to have erased torturous interrogations carried about by Americans - has dragged on for three years with no resolution in sight The length of time is a minor issue compared with what the ACLU says such foot dragging signifies: "Sanctioning impunity for government officials who authorized torture."

<...>

My own research:

This report examines the Obama administration’s record to date on a range of national security policies that implicate human rights and civil liberties. It concludes that the administration has taken positive steps and made genuine progress in some areas. Perhaps most notably, the administration’s release of Justice Department memoranda that purported to authorize the Bush administration’s torture regime, as well as a CIA report describing how even those lax limits were exceeded, evinced a commitment to transparency of truly historic significance, and the administration deserves high praise for making those critical documents available for public scrutiny. Regrettably, in a pattern that has repeated itself throughout the administration’s first eighteen months, a significant achievement was followed by a step back: the administration reversed its decision to comply with a court decision ordering the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it supported legislation granting the Secretary of Defense unprecedented authority to conceal evidence of misconduct.

Similarly, the administration’s admirable commitment to dismantle the Guantánamo prison has been undermined by its unwillingness to dismantle the legal architecture of the Bush-era detention regime: the Obama administration has continued to assert the authority to detain militarily, without charge or trial, Guantánamo detainees (and others) captured far from any conventional battlefield, and there is a genuine danger that the administration will close the prison but enshrine the principle of widespread military detention without trial. Equally disappointing, the administration’s unequivocal prohibition against torture has been fundamentally weakened by its continuation of the Bush administration’s efforts to stymie meaningful accountability: the administration has adopted the same sweeping theory of “state secrets” to prevent torture victims from seeking justice and compensation in U.S. courts, and the President himself has publicly opposed criminal investigations of the architects of the torture regime.

<...>

The decision to dismantle the Bush administration’s torture program was a crucial one, not just for the United States but for the world. President Obama deserves credit for the decision, and for his vigorous defense of it. But while the administration has disavowed torture, it has made little effort to hold accountable those who authorized it. In recent years, many other countries—including some of America’s closest allies, like the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and Canada—have begun to examine their responsibility for the abuse and torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. The United States is increasingly isolated in its unwillingness to investigate the roots of the torture program, its refusal to compensate torture survivors, and its failure to hold accountable the senior government officials who authorized interrogators to use torture.

President Obama Correctly Rebukes Congressional Attempt To Hinder Transfer Of Guantánamo Detainees To U.S.

There has been progress and more needs to be done. Again, a process to reverse the policies is in progress and is not the same as vindicating Cheney.

[sabrina 1]

42. They have not ended torture!

People are being tortured under this administration. Cheney is pleased with the policies.

Disavowing and ending something, holding accountable those responsible, are two entirely different things, especially if you or your loved are the ones being torture. Or if you were tortured in the past and try to get some justice, but the new administration refuses to give you your day in court.

Torture is against all of our laws. A simple order from the CIC that torturers WILL be punished according to the law would have ended it.

That is what we worked for. It hasn't happened. Two years and going into the third and the U.S. is still torturing and refusing to prosecute torturers.

But while the administration has disavowed torture, it has made little effort to hold accountable those who authorized it.

It has made NO effort. In fact we have discovered from the leaks in the Wikileaks cables, that this administration actively intervened in Spain's attempt to hold Bush torturers accountable, to protect them.

I have no idea why a democrat such as yourself would even attempt to defend the torture of even one human being. But there was no such defense of Bush airc.

Torture is against the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who condones it, especially if they are in a position of power, is violating the law. Cheney is happy to be able to say to democrats 'see, you're doing it also' hoping that they will be silenced on the issue because now it their leaders who are doing it.

I hope he is proven wrong and that no Democrat will condone it just because it is now being done under a democratic administration.

[ProSense]

46. "People are being tortured under this administration. "

No they are not. Please cite any official claim that President Obama has sanctioned torture.

That's pure BS.

[sabrina 1]

48. I have already provided you with several links proving that torture

is being sanctioned by this administration. Rendition means sending people to other countries where they will be tortured.

And yes, it is pure BS although that is putting it mildly.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

51. No you haven't

"Rendition means sending people to other countries where they will be tortured."

Rendition means no such thing.

[sabrina 1]

54. I'm afraid Obama doesn't agree with you. When he promised to end

the practice of renditions, he called it 'outsourcing our torture to other countries'.

[Selatius]

68. The way I understand it, rendition means sending someone to another country for whatever purpose.

If that country happens to conduct torture on suspects, that's merely incidental to the transfer. If, for instance, we transferred a suspect in our country to a notorious human rights abuser like Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, it's not really our responsibility if they again violate international law by torturing the subject, simply because it is no longer a matter of American jurisdiction. Civil libertarians have been trying to place the blame on the US gov't for years now for continuing to rend suspects to countries with horrible human rights records, but no argument has stuck by virtue that it is no longer an American jurisdiction.

[G. Odoreida]

80. That is correct

And rendition to countries who torture bears the same moral burden whether done under Obama or under Bush.

[rhett o rick]

82. Bradley Manning. nm

[webDude]

70. Seriously, ProSense, do your homework, or stop working for them, your choice.

[dotymed]

73. What?

"The Presidency, any U.S. Presidency, is never pretty, but to claim that President Obama, who inherited the mess created by Bush and Cheney, is somehow vindicating them because things haven't been fully reversed in two years is absurd"

Your "reasoning" is absurd.
As the "Commander in Chief", those policies could've (and should've) been changed in the blink of an eye.
These are command, not legislative, decisions....
How can Democrats condone Rethugs for "blindly supporting" their candidate because of his party, and then do exactly the same thing?

[molly77]

94. I still like Obama. Just wish he could be our real president.

[bread_and_roses]

71. Amen, Sister. (n/t)

[russspeakeasy]

88. Sabrina 1...It is what I would have said if I could have thought

of the right words ...Thanks...sabrina 1.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

77. Just how has Pres Obama demonstrated he is "in the process of trying to reverse"

the Bush/Cheney war/torture/domestic spying policies? The fact that he hasnt done a thing in two years, hasnt even spoke out against these policies is an indication he condones them.

And now he is allowing the extreme mistreatment of Bradley Manning.

[molly77]

93. Why not? He and his gang are still running the show.

I am sure that Obama has been threatened..do what you are told or else.

[walldude]

14. Is Cheney in prison? Is his name poison?

No he's collecting money from the policies he made to enhance the companies he had his hands in. He's getting the best health care money can buy.. our money. He's living high on the hog and laughing all the way to the bank. Making guest appearances on FOX, shooting friends in the face, playing golf. Yeah he's in real trouble. :eyes:

[ProSense]

16. "Is his name poison?"

Obviously not, he's being quoted as a voice of wisdom.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. What did Cheney say in these articles that isn't true?

Hmm?

[ProSense]

32. I'm glad you see Cheney as a truthteller here

I think he's full of shit.

"I think he's learned that he's not going to be able to close Guantanamo. "

[Hello_Kitty]

34. ProSense, you're really cute when you grasp at straws.

"OMG YOU HEART CHENEY NOW!!" :eyes:

[ProSense]

40. Cute: "What did Cheney say in these articles that isn't true?" n/t

[rhett o rick]

86. Exactly and he closed Guantanamo like he promised.

What? Guantanamo hasnt been closed?

[sabrina 1]

44. He's being quoted by the right as the voice of reason, and now

so is Obama.

[rhett o rick]

85. And Pres Obama isnt calling him out. nm

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

59. Obama is following in Cheney's footsteps.

I know it is disappointing, but it has to be acknowledged. The facts are undeniable.

[rhett o rick]

78. Bradley Manning nm

[Jakes Progress]

89. Let me help.

If you read the article, it quotes cheney as saying that Obama's actions vindicate the things the bush administration did regarding the WOT. Greenwald seems to agree that it is Obama's actions that vindicate the bush agenda.

That is not the same thing as vindicating cheney. Did you read it incorrectly or were you just caught for a clever line to throw out. From other posts where you have used Greenwald as a source I believe that you must read him regularly. If so then you know that Greenwald does not approve of or vindicate what bush and cheney did. Indeed he does not approve of those things when Obama does them. With this in mind, don't you believe that you should change your post to more accurately reflect reality?

Now. You can argue that Obama is not continuing what cheney and bush did. Or, preposterously, you can argue that cheney is right and that the Obama administration is correct to continue the war crimes that were standard under bush and cheney. But it is disingenuous to argue that Greenwald is vindicating the bush, cheney actions.

[molly77]

92. They try but do not succeed.

Ever seen the pictures of bush at the Olympics in China? He was so drunk it took about 10 of the SS to haul him off his bleacher.Not a peep in MSM. Fascists.

[somone]

5. Now that he's won the seal of approval from the warmongering fascists

the seal of approval from the U.S Chamber of Commerce is next

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Obama understood, even before getting elected, that he would have to play ball.

Unless he acted like Bush on steroids in regard to terrorism, abandoning the rule of law etc. he knew that it would lead to his being set-up by BushCo and the MIC. It is child's play for these folks to manufacture some sort of attack for the sole purpose of allowing the pack of snarling right-wing dogs of the right-wing hate machine to relentlessly tear into President Obama for making America less safe and being "soft" on terrorism.

In short, Pres. Obama appears to have completely abandoned his principles and campaign promises as a political tactic to shield him from this type of attack from the right-wing.

[Jefferson23]

7. Bipartisanship..at its worst. Would love to hear a response from the WH.

[vi5]

8. There goes Greenwald again...

With his "civil liberties" and his whole obsession with "the truth" and problems with "hypocrites".

Some people are just so naive. He really should just sit back and trust the grown ups to handle things and to take care of us and make us feel safe.


:sarcasm:

[Better Believe It]

9. And I bet he can't play chess like President Obama!

[somone]

10. or hopscotch

[QC]

26. And Greenwald's not half so fetching in his swimsuit! n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

81. New material....

Get some. :boring:

[ProSense]

12. Cheney: "I think he's learned that he's not going to be able to close Guantanamo. "

Cheney is full of shit and is simply trying to push a meme.

President Obama Correctly Rebukes Congressional Attempt To Hinder Transfer Of Guantánamo Detainees To U.S.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. Thanks for posting

I'll concede the concerns about the drones. However, trying to close Gitmo and trying to get a civilian trial for KSM were not "Bush/Cheney-approved policies" AFAIK. Hey, what happened to the "underwear bomber"? Is HE sitting in Gitmo awaiting a military tribunal? Not being willing to stay in Iraq/Afghanistan indefinitely is not a Bush/Cheney-approved policy AFAIK. Also, where is the proof that President Obama is continuing the Bush/Cheney torture regime? Where are President Obama's affirmation of waterboarding?
:shrug:

[Better Believe It]

30. And how is President Obama's record on civil liberties and gov't spying compared to George W. Bush?

I'm listening.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. What's his record so far and what exactly is he (still) doing?

:shrug:

[Better Believe It]

47. Read this just for starters: Government Spying on Americans -- Doesn't Any One Care?

Government Spying on Americans -- Doesn't Any One Care?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x213761

[Hello_Kitty]

33. Oooh...a sternly worded signing statement.

And the ACLU statement goes on to, you know, make good on his promise.

[gulliver]

15. So the right wants to jump on Obama's bandwagon...

...and Glenn Greenwald wants to interpret it as the reverse. What else is new?

Of course the right is saying that Obama is continuing Bush/Cheney policies. That's completely self-serving. Cheney et ilk know that the country is changing direction under Obama and that Obama is succeeding. These creeps want credit for Obama's success and they want Obama to share their blame. Nothing they say means anything. It's the damned grasping at the ankles of their successful replacement.

Read the news since Obama took over. It's the reverse of what it was like under Bush/Cheney. America is still coated in the residue and muck from the Bush/Cheney/GOP catastrophe. Blaming Obama for the time it takes to clean up the Bush/Cheney mess is like blaming the clean-up crew for the oil spill.

[Better Believe It]

17. Post information on the expansion of democratic rights and civil liberties under President Obama ...

and on the Obama administrations rejection and rollback of Bush's attacks on human rights and our Bill of Rights.

Hard facts, not meaningless political rhetoric please.

I'm listening.

[ProSense]

19. "Hard facts, not meaningless political rhetoric please. "

Prevent hospitals from denying visitation privileges to same-sex partners.

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

This Is A BIG F***ing Deal For The Deaf Community! (President Obama signs new communications law)

President Obama Signs the Fair Sentencing Act

Obama signs DADT repeal before big, emotional crowd

Do those count?

[Gaedel]

23. They don't count in the current argument

They are primarily "social" initiatives and they are a change from Bush-Cheney.

They are not international relations/national defense/internal security initiatives where Obama is following the precedents set by Bush-Cheney and going as few steps further on them.

[ProSense]

25. Oh

"Post information on the expansion of democratic rights and civil liberties under President Obama ..."

...they most certainly count.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. All of which has fuck all to do with the OP. eom

[gulliver]

24. Greenwald convicts himself. Read the OP.

Greenwald is quoting Bush admin hacks and Cheney as approving of Obama policies. Duh. Checkmate. That's Greenwald using the dirtiest perps of the right as if they were Abe Lincoln on sodium pentathol. You're buying it?

[Hello_Kitty]

38. They're direct quotes. If you have a problem with them take it up with the reporters.

[sabrina 1]

55. Greenwald, and others btw, reported what Cheney said in the

upcoming interview.

We didn't need Cheney to tell us that Obama's foreign policy, as some observers have said, but Cheney would never give him THAT much credit, 'is even more agressive than Bush/Cheney's'.

There are several articles other than Greenwald's today remarking on how Cheney has expressed his approval of Obama 'doing the kind of things we did'.

So, are they all wrong? You seem to have a beef with Greenwald, do you have a beef with all the others?

Cheney said what he said and it stands on its own and while in his delusional mind he believes his approval means something good. The truth is that Cheney's approval of Obama's foreign policy and his willingness to do nothing about war crimes, is an indictment on this administration. But it is not something that others have not remarked on.

Now, either Obama found that he had no choice for some reason, or he agrees with these policies.

[sabrina 1]

22. He IS continuing Bush/Cheney policies. No one needed

Cheney to make that clear.

Tell the mothers of Afghanistan, whose voices you apparently don't hear as they beg the U.S. to stop killing their children with those criminal and cowardly drones, that Obama is on a 'different' course than Bush/Cheney.

Do you read the daily news on the killing of civilians under this administration? Are you aware that rather than reduce the use of those horrific weapons, this administration has increased their use succeeding in killing far more civilians than Bush/Cheney managed to do?

Please stop apologizing for these crimes against humanity. I truly never thought I'd see the day when we would see people excusing this slaughter on a democratic board. I know this, a dead child is one dead child too many. At least it is if it's an American child.

How many more 'other' people's children are Obama supporters ready to sacrifice for whatever the agenda is now?

I've seen the mothers of Afghanistan picking up the body parts of their babies and no excuse in the world will make me believe that any of this is necessary or can be excused in any way whatsoever.



Give her and her loved ones, precious little girl that she is, these excuses. IF she hasn't been blown to bits by a drone.

[rhett o rick]

79. To think the right would ever jump on Pres Obama's bandwagon is delusional. nm

[fascisthunter]

18. Is Anyone SUrprised Dick would Say This

This is why Obama's inactions are a dangerous precedent.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. All that's missing is the cowboy boots and "Smoke 'em out".

[Capitalocracy]

62. That difference may be worth something.

I wish we could get a real difference, but it seems a perceived difference, and at least the ability to say that not everyone in the U.S. is happy about these crimes, is all we can get.

Unless we continue to applaud for Obama, making it clear that what bothered us wasn't the torture and illegal war, etc., but the fact that Bush was doing it.

[Poboy]

41. Recommend.

[Doctor_J]

43. When the people who want to destroy the prez are happy with him...

he is in deep trouble, and so is the country.

[Karmadillo]

45. K&R

nt

[SidDithers]

50. Greenwald's a one-trick pony...

SSDD.

Sid

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

60. So long as his trick is telling the truth he doesn't need more than

one ~

[liberation]

66. Projection being what it is...

[rhett o rick]

87. Greenwald isnt the one continuing the Patriot Act, MCA, domestic spying, Guantanamo, torture

and the wars.

[Fumesucker]

52. K&R, thanks for posting..

[Puregonzo1188]

56. Great article. Disturbing, but great.

[Angry Dragon]

57. When did Congress declare war

Did I miss that??

[bertman]

61. REC and kick. nt

[blackspade]

63. Fuck.

Could someone point the direction out of this rabbit hole?

[Jefferson23]

64. K&R

[dreamnightwind]

65. K & R, but this one hurts

A most painful truth is reported here. It angers me beyond description that we got so little difference when we sent a Dem to the White House after 8 years of the worst, most criminal regime I have ever witnessed.

I can't believe there are Dems in this thread arguing the point. It has been obvious for all with eyes to see for some time now. We were punked. Our constitutional scholar anti-Iraq War anti-torture anti spying-on-Americans POTUS got elected, stepped into a phone booth (who knew there were still phone booths?), and emerged with Bush/Cheney policies written all over his chest.

Primary him in 2012, with someone who will speak the whole truth, without fear and without political consideration. These policies need to be exposed for what they are. And beyond that, we Democrats need to find a way to verify our candidates' intentions before we vote, and to hold them to it once they are in office. We need accountability.

[Fiendish Thingy]

67. Damning Praise n/t

[Michigan-Arizona]

69. K&R n/t

[dotymed]

72. Sadly,

I am sure President Obama has profited handsomely from his "conversion" (my ass) to RW terror tactics.

[Better Believe It]

75. He will cash in his "Wall Street chips" after his presidency ends, but that's a different matter.

[Senator]

74. And It Will Be Obama's ONLY Legacy

His choice to be Driver of the Torture Getaway Car is by far his most "historic" undertaking.

---

[spanone]

76. that 'interview' was a cheney infomercial...not one hardball question

not even close

all soft and fuzzy

[Time for change]

83. I would be happy to see Obama switch parties

That would clarify things.

[DeSwiss]

95. Bingo. n/t

[blindpig]

84. The established power loves continuity. n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

90. K and R