Posted on 02/12/2008 4:41:02 PM PST by Libloather
Obama's Dangerous Ignorance
February 12, 2008
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'm sitting here reading this Obama interview, and I am in stunned disbelief. Nobody can be this ignorant. Scary ignorant. From high atop the EIB Building in Midtown Manhattan, one of the most frequently visited tourist attractions in all of Manhattan, I am Rush Limbaugh, behind the Golden EIB Microphone. Great to have you with us. Here's the phone number, 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address is ElRushbo@eibnet.com. It's a Q&A with Barack Obama December 20th in the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage wrote the story. Try this one. This is number five. "Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?" Obama's answer: "No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants." Memo to Obama: It is not the Bush administration's position. The Supreme Court held in 2004 -- this is the famous case, US vs. Hamdi. The president has the power to detain American citizens without charges as enemy combatants. Now, I just have to think here -- I don't know what to think. He's either ignorant or he's saying something far more dangerous. If he is saying that he's not bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, liberals would have a stroke if Bush claimed the kind of authority that Obama is claiming in this -- and ignorance.
Liberals are out there going bonkers every day over how stupid Bush is. This Obama interview is just scary. Let's see. Find another one here. He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them. He says the president doesn't have the authority to abolish treaties. And the president does! Bush abolished the ABM treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it's irrelevant. The Soviets are gone. I'm getting rid of this. The liberals went nuts, but they couldn't stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties. Obama says here that the president does not have the authority to undermine Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties. The Senate doesn't ratify, they consent to them. The president makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them. When's the last time you saw Gorbachev meeting with some senator at Reykjavik or anywhere else? Gorbachev met with Reagan, for crying out loud.
This interview sets McCain up. There's a sitting duck out there. There's a sitting duck for McCain if he wants to exploit this. Andy McCarthy posted an article today, National Review Online, discussing the announcement that military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five others who are complicit in the 9/11 attacks. This is the 9/11 Six, and the article raises the issue of what kind of enforcement paradigm we're going to have. Do we go back to the September 10th approach of treating foreign jihadists as if they were ordinary criminal defendants entitled to all the rights and privileges of the civilian justice system, or should we treat the enemy as a war criminal in a conflict in which it's vital that we protect the intelligence we depend on to save American lives? In other words, are we going to go back to the Jamie Gorelick Clinton days where we're going to treat these enemy combatants as just civilians in court and we're going to hear testimony and we're going to divulge intelligence secrets of what it took to nail them, or are we going to treat them as enemy combatants, military tribunals and this kind of thing?
**SNIP**
I’m afraid Rush is wrong about this. Nobody who listens to Rush is going to vote for Obama anyway, and the MSM will never tell anyone about these blunders.
I think Obama will wipe the floor with McCain in a debate. He will smile, and look down his nose at him, and compliment him on his 50 years of service to his country, and McCain will eventually blow his top.
Obama has his teleprompter, and no doubt an earphone for debates. He will have the best speech writers from his party—just as McCain has inherited the best Republican speech writers. But Obama will do a better job of pretending these are his words and beliefs.
McCain will come across as a sick and angry old man, once the media stop covering for him. Because that’s what he is.
It is disgusting.
The sheeple in the Obama Cult don’t know the difference, and wouldn’t care if they did know.
I think he’s right. McCain will win a lot of votes due to Obama’s complete lack of experience. Obama will make mistakes and the GOP campaign structure will inalate him on it. Whether it is enough to win, I don’t know, but it will sway many. There are many voters who value the role of CIC and who generally believe in smaller government and lower taxes that will vote for McCain over the most liberal guy in the Senate. Again, 51%, I don’t know.
Great word-smithing...Obama-nation. I compliment your talent.
The key word there was “U.S. Citizens”...
Bush isn’t seeking to keep ‘U.S. Citizens’ per se, which implies taking people off the street and detaining them. He is saying keeping ‘Enemy combatants’ - who are foreigners in all but the most unusual of cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.