"Up is down, left is right, Bush undercut security..."
Posted on 05/21/2009 2:18:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON, May 21 (UPI) -- Former President George W. Bush applied an unjust, "ad hoc" approach to terrorism that undercut U.S. security, President Barack Obama said Thursday.
That "ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism ... was neither effective nor sustainable," Obama said at the National Archives building where the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are kept.
Bush "failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions and ... failed to use our values as a compass," he said.
That's why Obama said his administration banned "so-called enhanced interrogation techniques," ordered the closure of the Guantanamo prison camp and directed authorities to review the cases of all of its detainees.
He said the interrogation techniques and the use of Guantanamo not only undermined the rule of law, but also alienated "us in the world," helped terrorists gain recruits and increased "the will of our enemies to fight us."
And now, "We're cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constantly, almost daily, basis and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Obama has begged W to come off the bench. Come on W.
Obama...the village idiot of all time.
Wow, this is beyond normal political spin. What’s scary is that someone who didn’t really believe this stuff wouldn’t have the gall to say it, even a politician. Which means zero really is delisional. Scary...
Oh Lord...I pray you give this man some brains. He does not think about what he says ever.
He knows EXACTLY what he is saying. He is one step ahead of the game.
“...and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.”
So now, WHEN his Islamic buddies launch another attack he can say “Back in March I had discussed how we were consumed - DAILY - fixing the mess left by the previous administration. If President Bush had not.....”
Since Obama said what his teleprompter told him to, it can't be true.
The problem is this: he’s been lying for years about Guantanamo, and now he owns it, and the problem is his. He can’t simply admit he was a lying windbag and none of it was true. But he can’t close it either. So he announces he is closing it, while extending its operation for another year.
He did try to fob off his prisoners on the Europeans, but of course if the Americans don’t care enough about them to keep them behind bars, why should anyone else? If the Americans don’t want the trouble of holding them why should anyone else bother with it?
And he’s been lying about the people who run Guantanamo for years, and now he is their commander in chief. But he can’t simply admit that he slandered them and never had a clue what he was talking about.
He’s lied about torture for years, and now it comes out that there was never any torture, and that his party was kept informed at what was happening at every step of the way. But he can’t admit that he was lying, so he keeps on about solving a problem that only exists in the minds of people too simple to see through him.
“Obama has begged W to come off the bench. Come on W.”
No, not yet. If he does, then he becomes the issue.
I think Cheney and other Republican leaders need to keep the pressure on. This kind of nonsense by Obama shows mental instability and the sooner Congress understands it the sooner he can be removed via impeachment because of mental incapacitation.
Isn’t this a bit like a baseball pitcher at the beginning of the second game of double header complaining about the pitching style of the guy who pitched a shutout in the first game of the double header.
or
how exactly is no attacks since 9/11 a failure?
The clear implication is that Obama’s definition of a successful National Security Policy is not one which prevents attacks but one which we can feel good about.
“Obama has begged W to come off the bench. Come on W.
I concur with another poster that W shouldn’t take the bait, but this is stunning. Obama has resorted to flagrant campaign trail rhetoric: bold, direct, but woefully thin on facts. Can anyone remember ANY sitting president laying into his predecessor in such a blatant fashion? The time for campaigning ended more than 6 months ago.
Contrast Obama’s pleas for tolerance and civil discourse in his Notre Dame address to how he actually behaves in office. This is supposed to encourage bipartisanship? Wow!
I do absolutely think this is an Alinsky-style attack designed to deliberately arouse an over-reaction among conservatives. That way Obama gets to divert attention from the fact that he actually is playing by the Bush playbook on the ground and can instead point out the “mean-spirited” and “partisan” attacks on him. He knows that the public tends to rally around a president under attack. Of course, it also is red-meat to his hard-left base, which has been increasingly vocal about his morphing into GWB II.
You knew about all of this when you ran for office. You made promises to fix it all, because you have all the answers. We heard all this during your campaign. Is blame the only tool you have?
So shut up and fix everything already, genius.
>>”Bush undercut U.S. security, Obama says”<<
And Barry, your doing a fine job of undercutting U.S. security even far more than the one you so easily blame.
Ironic, huh, moron?
The U. S. has never, in its entire history, fought a war the way Obama wants to fight this war against Islamic terrorists.
NEVER.
Barak Obama is an idiot.
Since the founding of the country, we have adapted, improvised and overcame all sorts of NEW challenges.
I guess he never heard of the Civil War and Abarahm Linoln suspending habeas corpus.
I guess he never heard of the internment of Japanese Americans.
I would like for our esteemed and most learned president to point to the instances of foreign nationals declaring war on the United States (and actually attack it) without the benefit of a flag (country) to fight under.
How did we respond in 1786?
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”
So, what did we do? Sent in the Marines. INVADED A FOREIGN COUNTRY!
Barak Obama is an idiot.
Who writes the history books? Those who win.
To whom do the spoils go? The Victor.
These weak-wristed, simple-minded liberals are naive to the point of delusion. They want everyone to LOVE us.
Newsflash to the IOC (That is Idiot in Cheif): They don’t like us because we have it, they don’t and they want it.
WAKE UP, BARAK!!!!!
"Up is down, left is right, Bush undercut security..."
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.