Will the Senate Investigate the Bush Admin For War Crimes?

As President Barack Obama reverses some of ex-President George W. Bush’s most controversial “war on terror” policies, a consensus seems to be building among Democratic congressional leaders that further investigations are needed into Bush’s use of torture and other potential crimes.

On Wednesday – the first working day of the Obama administration – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would support funding and staff for additional fact-finding by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which last month released a report of alleged abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib to Bush’s Feb. 7, 2002, decision to exclude terror suspects from Geneva Convention protections.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who issued that report, echoed Reid’s comments, saying “there needs to be an accounting of torture in this country.” Levin, D-Michigan, also said he intends to encourage the Justice Department and incoming Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate torture practices that took place while Bush was in office.

Two other key Democrats joined in this growing chorus of lawmakers saying that serious investigations should be conducted.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, a former federal prosecutor and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a floor speech, “As the President looks forward and charts a new course, must someone not also look back, to take an accounting of where we are, what was done, and what must now be repaired.”

Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters: "Looking at what has been done is necessary.”

On Jan. 18, two days before Obama’s inauguration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed support for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers’s plan to create a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts to probe the “broad range” of policies pursued by the Bush administration “under claims of unreviewable war powers.”

The truth is that the allegations made against the Administration reflects a difference of opinion in policy matters.  Democrats have thus far been unable to make a legitimate argument or present credible evidence of any real violation of the Constitution or any law.  

What this really boils down to is that the Democrats want to prosecute the Bush administration because...

1.  Bush left with a low approval rating, therefore the Democrats think they can get away with it.

2.  Democrats want to deflect the attention away from the recent myriad of scandals involving other Democrats and try to drag down the Republican party as much as possible.

If they are successful, the Democrats will have succeeded in doing what they have really been trying to do for ... well, at least for most of my life on this planet:  and that is destroy Democracy and the American political system.

If a previous administration can go to jail because of matters of policy, then our government by the people and for the people is over.  If this goes forward, then every time a Republican is elected to the Oval Office, he has to worry about whether he and his team (or she and her team ... Vote Palin!) will end up going to jail four (or eight) years later because the Democrats might be in power in congress and have enough votes to do whatever it is they want to do.  

On the other hand, if Obama really screws up the economy (which is looking more and more like a possibility every day), and he gets voted out along with all the Democrats in congress four (or eight) years from now, how would the Democrats like it if a new Republican congress sent all of them to Jail for violations of the Constitution? 

Read more...

Media Coverage of Bush's Farewell Address

The three network morning shows on Friday almost totally skipped any coverage of President Bush's farewell address to the country on Thursday. Despite having a combined eight hours of air time, NBC's "Today," CBS's "Early Show" and ABC's "Good Morning America" devoted only 55 seconds total to reporting on Bush's speech.Instead, important topics such as "Obama thongs" and cheddar biscuits were highlighted.

Over a period of two hours, "The Early Show" ignored the speech entirely. "Good Morning America," which has a similar running time, allowed a mere 17 seconds. The "Today" show, which now encompasses four hours of broadcast time, provided the most, with 38 seconds of information about the address. None of the three programs featured any clips of Bush's farewell. (In contrast, on March 19, 2008, the day after then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's speech on race, these same shows allowed nine and a half minutes of sound bites of the Democrat.)

Of course, much of Friday's programming recounted the incredible tale of passengers and pilots who survived a water landing on the Hudson River in New York. However, the three shows certainly had time to revel in the frivolous, including silly stories related to President-elect Barack Obama. On "Today," host Hoda Kotb held up the latest in Obama thongs. (Kotb and co-host Kathie Lee Gifford giggled at the "Momma Got Hope" logo on the front of one thong.)

Over on GMA, co-host Robin Roberts and others spent over four minutes cooking bacon and cheddar biscuits with Emeril Lagasse. Additionally, co-host Diane Sawyer discussed whether Obama had the right dancing moves for the inaugural dance.

Finally, the "Early Show," which had zero coverage of Bush's speech, featured two Obama related segments, one on patriotic arts and crafts and a second on a Harlem school that will be having a group of children perform at Barack Obama's inauguration.

What little coverage there was of Bush's speech often featured Obama. On GMA, guest news anchor Deborah Roberts announced, "President Bush's next public event will be attending Barack Obama's inauguration." Natalie Morales on NBC said of Bush: "And he praised President-elect Obama, calling him a man whose history reflects the enduring promise of our land."

The only thing that remains to be seen is which of the big three networks will add an All-Obama-All-The-Time cable network.  (Or do we already have one in CNBC?)

Read more...

Inaugural Extravagance and MSM Bias

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security, which will be much tighter and more expensive than four years ago, nor does it count the cost for those who plan to attend, which should be triple what it was four years ago), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?

Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance:

So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?

To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.

"This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.

"Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.

And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. "Just say you're doing it to help the economy," chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge.

That spin is a far cry from four years ago, when the AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.

To get a real feel for the contrast, here’s an excerpt of Lester’s January 13, 2005 piece, which was designed to rain all over Bush’s parade and included the suggestion from two liberal Democrats that Bush eat cold chicken salad and pound cake instead:

President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.

■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

■ A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year....

The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt's inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."...

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association's Dallas Mavericks, voted for Bush -- twice. Cuban knows a thing or two about big spending, once starring in ABC's reality TV show, "The Benefactor," in which 16 contenders tried to pass his test for success and win $1 million.

"As a country, we face huge deficits. We face a declining economy. We have service people dying. We face responsibilities to help those suffering from the...devastation of the tsunamis," he wrote on his blog, a Web journal.

Cuban challenged Bush to set an example: "Start by canceling your inauguration parties and festivities."

Obviously, that’s not the media’s message to Barack Obama this year. And no one in the press is going to argue that, with the nation at war, the new President should be satisfied with cold chicken salad and pound cake.

Read more...

Freedom of the Press in Iraq

The shoes had hardly left the hand of the Iraqi who tossed them at President Bush during the Baghdad press conference yesterday when the leftwing blogosphere began cheering him as some sort of hero. The incredible success of the Surge in Iraq has been very frustrating for the left. Along with Joe Biden they claimed that the Surge could never work. Problem was that it worked. That is why they have been so silent recently on the topic of the Iraq. The complete turnaround there has been much too embarrassing for them to mention Iraq very much...until now. The shoes tossed by that Iraqi journalist let loose a river of pent up frustration in the form of hailing the shoe tosser.

The comments from the left range from the mild (mostly wishing Bush hadn't ducked) to encouraging others to do harm, or worse to our President.

I'm glad we have such a tolerant loving group of people looking out for our best interests.  The left always complains about the mean-spirited, hateful folks on the right.  Yet, never has there been such a public display of downright hatred in American politics (at least in my lifetime) as there has been over the past eight years against President Bush.  

I wonder what kind of reaction we'll see from the left if Obama receives the same sort of treatment.  When people start publicly calling for others to do harm or to do in President Obama, will the left be standing up for "free speech" or will the cry fowl?  I doubt we'll see the same sort of glee when (not if) Obama has some crazies go after him.

So Americans, the next time you see Barack Obama, don't just give him the finger.  Give him your shoes.  Let's see what kind of reaction you get.

Read more...