Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #1

    Apr 9, 2009, 06:13 AM
    Olbermannn slams Obama's loss of credibility
    Daily Kos: State of the Nation

    How dare Olbermann point out the difference between rhetoric and action !

    How dare he point out Obama's flip flops or the fact that Obama is WORSE than Bush on "illegal spying."

    Funny thing is that Olbermann is far left and you get this from the Obots



    Is it time to go after Olbermann? Expose him for the Obama hater he secretly must be? Forgive my sarcasm, but I guarantee you he got some hostile mail tonight.



    Hey at least Olbermann is consistent on his views and stance :)




    Maybe the Obots will portray Olbermann as the new leader of the Republicans :D:cool:





    G&P
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Apr 9, 2009, 06:39 AM
    If you've lost Olby, well...

    That's really no surprise, Keith's been known to takes cues from Kos. But hey, it is noteworthy to see someone in the media on the left finally take Obama to task.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #3

    Apr 9, 2009, 06:55 AM

    Hello:

    Unlike right wingers, who turned themselves into a virtual cult of uncritical reverence for the dufus in chief, large numbers of Bush critics, such as MYSELF, have been willing to criticize Obama when he embraces the very policies that prompted so much anger and controversy during the Bush years. I did it HERE: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...et-338528.html

    Go, Keith, GO!

    excon

    PS> It IS true, people on the left are wonderfuler than you righty's.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,741, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Apr 9, 2009, 08:11 AM

    I'm supposed to be impressed because Olberman takes the President to task for not having the same level of BDS as Keith has?

    Olby won't be happy until he sees President Bush tar and feathered.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #5

    Apr 9, 2009, 08:30 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Olby won't be happy until he sees President Bush tar and feathered.
    Hello again, tom:

    You don't get tarred and feathered for war crimes...

    But, even if we're only talking about abusing his authority, you ought to support going after Bush for using powers he DIDN'T have, because I know you're going to want to go after Obama for using powers he DOESN'T have...

    Or, is it only OK for the dufus to abuse presidential power?

    excon
    twinkiedooter's Avatar
    twinkiedooter Posts: 12,172, Reputation: 1054
    Uber Member
     
    #6

    Apr 9, 2009, 03:42 PM

    Excon
    Wonderfuler is not a word. :eek: The correct word would be wonderfilly as in Philly cream cheese.:D:D
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #7

    Apr 9, 2009, 05:55 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    You don't get tarred and feathered for war crimes.....

    But, even if we're only talking about abusing his authority, you ought to support going after Bush for using powers he DIDN'T have, because I know you're going to want to go after Obama for using powers he DOESN'T have...

    Or, is it only ok for the dufus to abuse presidential power??

    excon

    Yes, you did call Obama out - I missed that the first time. Kudos for you.


    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1651291


    Should we go after the Cia and Bush for what might have been illegal wiretapping?
    Should we go after the Cia and Obama forwhat might have been or is illegal wiretapping?

    What are the guidelines for legality? What have the lawyers set up prior to this? I have no ideas but it seems like both are going to hide behind the "privelege" and " sovreign immunity " clauses.

    Will this lead to congressional hearings for every single wiretap in the past, in the future?
    How effective will our surveillance of the real threats be then?




    G&P
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Apr 10, 2009, 02:25 PM
    Jake Tapper of ABC offers his take on this:

    On 'State Secrets,' Meet Barack W. Obama

    April 10, 2009 9:20 AM

    In February, President Obama's Justice Department quietly argued in a San Francisco court that it was maintaining the same position as President Bush's Justice Department on a case involving detainees trying to sue a private company for its role in their (allegedly) extraordinary renditions.

    The Obama administration pushed the status quo administration argument by invoking the "state secrets" argument, also a Bush-era fave.

    "It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases," said DOJ spox Matt Miller.

    Last week, Team Obama did it again.

    And why wouldn't they?

    Attorney General Eric Holder recently said he was reviewing the way the Bush administration used the "state secrets" argument, but "on the basis of the two, three cases that we've had to review so far -- I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct."

    Huh.

    That seems a little different from the Obama-Biden campaign website where "The Problem" is described in part as the Bush administration having "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court."

    Because that's just what the Obama administration tried to do.

    This time the issue was the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, and whether courts would be able to assess its constitutionality in a case called Jewel v. NSA, where the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the NSA surveillance by suing on behalf of AT&T customers whose records may or may not have been caught up in the NSA "dragnet."

    Last Friday, while President Obama traversed throughout Europe, his Justice Department sought to have Jewel v. NSA dismissed because "the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction with respect to plaintiffs’ statutory claims against the United States because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity" and "because information necessary to litigate plaintiffs’ claims is properly subject to and excluded from use in this case by the state secrets privilege and related statutory privileges."

    Argued the Justice Department: Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair "has once again demonstrated that the disclosure of the information implicated by this case, which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security."

    "President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

    This of course is just the latest in Mr. Obama's evolution on the matter. When the question came up last Summer as to whether then-Sen. Obama would support a filibuster of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill if it allowed telecommunications firms immunity for cooperating with the NSA program, Sen. Obama's flip on the matter was worthy of an Olympic gold medal.

    Obama spox Bill Burton had told Talking Points Memo in October 2007 that "Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

    His office reaffirmed that position in December 2007: “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies ... Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”

    But things change. And Mr. Obama voted to end the filibuster.

    On June 25, 2008, Mr. Obama said, "It is a close call for me but I think the current legislation with exclusivity provision that says that a president -- whether George Bush, myself or John McCain -- can’t make up rationales for getting around FISA court, can’t suggest that somehow that there is some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps.. . The underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security as long as it has these constraints on them. I thought it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise."

    DOJ spox Miller says that "the administration recognizes that invoking the states secret privilege is a significant step that should be taken only when absolutely necessary. After careful consideration by senior intelligence and Department of Justice officials, it was clear that pursuing this case could unavoidably put at risk the disclosure of sensitive information that would harm national security."

    Continued Miller: "An examination by the Director of National Intelligence and an internal review team established by the Attorney General determined that attempting to address the allegations in this case could require the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods that are used in a lawful manner to protect national security. The administration cannot risk the disclosure of information that could cause such exceptional harm to national security."

    But there's a new wrinkle to the Obama DOJ argument, critics say.

    As Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon earlier this week, "beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned...

    "Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of 'state secrets' to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself," Greenwald writes.
    Yes ex, you called him out on it. Olbermann called him out on it. A few others as mentioned here called him out on it. Where are the rest of the voices that bloviated hysterically about Bush's alleged abuse? Will they call for prosecution of Obama when he expands the abuse? It's still awfully quiet out there, they either need to hold Obama to a similar standard or apologize to Bush.
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #9

    Apr 10, 2009, 03:48 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Where are the rest of the voices that bloviated hysterically about Bush's alleged abuse? Will they call for prosecution of Obama when he expands the abuse? It's still awfully quiet out there, they either need to hold Obama to a similar standard or apologize to Bush.
    Or citizens need to go after both Bush and Obama on this issue. :confused:

    Thus far the only "change" is that Obama seems to be Bush on steroids regarding this issue :rolleyes::)

    If the Obama administration is seeing the light as to the threat of terror, and is trying to use this so that the US will be terror event free after 9/11/01 as Bush's administration was, than I give Obama credit in this regard.




    G&P
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,741, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #10

    Apr 11, 2009, 02:14 PM
    More kudos to the President recognizing the need to keep prisoners during war without the meddling of the judiciary .

    The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/wo...litics&emc=rss

    The fact that his campaign rhetoric sucked on the issue and makes him a hypocrite is not as important to the fact that he now understands .What the candidate does during the campaign or before taking the office of President, is based on their knowledge at the time and once they do take office, they must face the realities of the situation despite their prior statements and convictions.

    Then again;he could've been lying outright to win the election. He has shown that tendencies also .

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Was this in Obama's infomercials? [ 3 Answers ]

In a January interview with the SF Chronicle, Obama told us he would make energy prices "skyrocket." "The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really...

Obama's logo [ 10 Answers ]

Is there anyone out there who knows what Obama's logo signifies? Most logos mean something.

Does child support ruin my credibility for certain jobs? [ 10 Answers ]

She is so difficult to deal with. She stopped me from visiting my son and cut off evry conversation. The next thing I know, she taken me to court for child support. I am a full time student and an immigrant. I survive on substitute teaching which is inconsistent plus my career aims at becoming a...


View more questions Search