You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Cheney’ tag.
What made news yesterday was the slashing of CEO’s compensations.
What was newsworthy was that this was a move decided by Obama’s pay czar on his own, without even briefeng the White House on it
But on Wednesday night, administration officials said that the president of the United States didn’t have all that much to do with a decision that will, in many ways, come to define his relationship with Wall Street.
In fact, sources within the administration say the decision to cap corporate pay was Kenneth Feinberg’s, and his alone. A senior administration official tells POLITICO that Obama did not sign off on the pay master’s decision.
Which reminds me of another newsworthy story that barely made news: the much praised decision to set a dateline for closing Guantanamo, was made by the White House Counsel Greg Craig. Since now, even CNN fact checking SNL had to give Guantanamo to them, it is Craig who is being scapegoated.
in the case of the CEO pay slash, we are in the celebration phase, so the pay czar us being used as ammunition in the “war on Fox” – with the White House trying to bar Fox from interviewing him and all the other networks refusing to join in the shunning. Maybe they are now understanding the meaning of the White House reserving the privilege of deciding what’s news and what’s not
“bears a striking resemblance” to the one announced by President Obama in March.
Bush administration handed Obama’s transition team a policy review of the Afghan war conducted last fall to meet the new challenges posed by the Taliban.“They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt,” Cheney said.
And it is true that Cheney did praise Obama in March, when stealing their plan
Leaving aside the dithering – not dithering debate, when Gibbs was asked about Cheney’s remarks – and delivered some – deserved attacks, the non-answer on the stolen strategy was interesting
“I have not looked at that review,” Gibbs said. “I don’t know whether what he describes is accurate.”
oops! Seems that like in the debates, Obama got to say “I agree with what they said”. Only he didn’t, he just pretended he said it.
So, the Nobel peace prize laureate, just stole Cheney’s war! Now, if he only could figure out what to do with it!
Adding a link to Cheney’s statements that still works
It was a logical step in the process of justification
It’s been predicted by Dick Cheney
It’s been sold to us by the Obama media
It’s been even noticed by the Bobots
Now, it’s time for the New York Times to do its talking points job of making it palatable to those aliens it calls “the left”
This time, it’s about taking to a new hights the self given Jr power of overriding the Judicial:
That privilege, a favorite tool of the Bush administration, allows the government to shut down lawsuits by invoking national security. The Obama administration’s brief argued, though no one had asked, that the state secrets privilege was rooted in the Constitution.
I have to confess, I loved that little barb about “no one asking”.
There is even a passing remark about campaign promises to the contrary.
Then everything is cherry picked to confuse and discourage the democracy minded reader.
We get one single quote from a concerned lawyer for some Islamic charity, the NY Times is deluging the reader with Justice Department rationale and even murky quotes from judges’ rulings.
But it does make it clear why, pretending the power grab is based in the Constitution it makes it harder to fight.(Duh)
The article ends with a judge’s opinion in which he basically throws his hands up in face of facts, rather than legitimize the law.
It feels like a “so whatcha gonna do about it” kind of dare. The same GOP-ers flaunted in 2000 after “we stole it fair and square”
Just say good bye to your rights to redress wrongs through the court system.
L’etat, c’est Obama
Jr.jr just escalated W power grab – and, besides that lonely lawyer in the article shaking his head, I don’t see a “left” batting an eyelash”. And unfortunately, the other side, is blinded by sheer ignorance and hurls epithets such as “socialism” – although I have yet to see one member of the proletariat benefitting from this dictatorship.
The only tabloid paying any attention to Obama is the free Metro – and it seems to be none too sympathetic either
oh, goody, we’ll have 2008 all over again. I lova Malloney – I’ll probably vote for her – but know I’ll have a good Senator no matter what (hear me Caroline, you brat?
At the Daily News website I found some more surprising news graphs :
First one ally who is no more
then one apparent adversary who is no more
(but then why would I call him Jr.jr?)
They look different and they seem to stand for different views.
They spoke from different places: one from the bowels of a think tank, the other with a facsimile Constitution as backdrop.
They seemed to accuse each other.
Bot those two are cousins and in the end, they both stand for the same things: the imperial presidency
Who said this
he was thinking about “the long game” — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents.He raised the issue of preventive detention”
If you guessed Cheney, you were wrong.
If ever there was a snow job on the American people, these two fighting cousins delivered today.
One said: “We were right to do what we did”
The other said: “Let’s not look at what they did, who cares? We only look forward”
One said: “We did what we did because of the war on terror”
The other said: I’ll do what they did (imprison people indefinitely and keep military tribunals) because of the war on terror”
One said: “We kept you safe, so be grateful for what we did”
The other said:”Keeping you safe is the cover for doing what they did”
In the end what we are left with is more of the same. Concludes Glenn Greenwald
Ultimately, what I find most harmful about his embrace of things like preventive detention, concealment of torture evidence, opposition to investigations and the like is that these policies are now no longer just right-wing dogma but also the ideas that many defenders of his — Democrats, liberals, progressives — will defend as well. Even if it’s due to perceived political necessity, the more Obama embraces core Bush terrorism policies and assumptions — we’re fighting a “war on terror”; Presidents have the power to indefinitely and “preventatively” imprison people with no charges; we can create new due-process-abridging tribunals when it suits us; the “Battlefield” is everywhere; we should conceal evidence when it will make us look bad — the more those premises are transformed from right-wing dogma into the prongs of bipartisan consensus, no longer just advocated by Bush followers but by many Obama defenders as well.
True. And makes me think is Cheney didn’t deliberaletly help make torture, permanent war a “centrist” issue by his bogus opposition. He simply played the Goldilocks game for the naive, making it appear that Obama’s transgressions are “just right”
It’s not like Darth didn’t tell them, once the slight of hand has been completed
“The President believes, I believe very deeply, in a strong executive, and I think that’s essential in this day and age. And I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress.
And then the Bush/Obama media took the cue and ‘splained it away
The flaw of the Bush-Cheney administration may have been less in what it did than in the way it did it—flaunting executive power, ignoring Congress, showing scorn for anyone who waved the banner of civil liberties.
Obama won’t flaunt, he’ll just grab power. Politely.
But now, the koolaid drinkers finally notice. Glenn Greenwald is shocked, I tell you! His entry headline ends ironically with a question mark
Is Obama embracing the lawless, omnipotent executive?
.The answer can only be: Duh!
We have already seen the continuation of W’s policies on secrecy and rendition, this is just a step further.
Not only is Obama’s DOJ arguing that the eavesdropping case should not be heard, this time
the Obama DOJ is now refusing to comply with the Judge’s order, actually arguing to the court that only the President can decide whether classified information can be used in a court proceeding, and that courts have no power to make such decisions.
The department said the judge had no power to enforce such an order.
Dick’s unitary executive lives!
As Marcy Wheeler documents in detail, the Obama DOJ is now spouting the Cheney/Addington view of government in its purest and most radical expression.
what they said is
According to Obama, only the President has the power to decide what is done with classified information, and neither courts nor Congress have any power at all to do anything but politely request that the President change his mind. Therefore, the President has the unilateral, unchallengeable power to prevent any judicial challenges to his actions by simply declaring that the relevant evidence is a secret and refusing to turn it over to a court, even if ordered to do so. That’s the argument which the Obama DOJ is now aggressively advancing — all in order to block any judicial adjudication of Bush’s now-dormant NSA program.
Yes, and the surprise is? Isn’t this the guy who voted for FISA – and was praised by KO for his bravery to “stand up to his base”?
From Greenwald links, another B0bot can’t believe it
We didn’t elect President Obama to preserve the Bush administration’s anti-contistutional executive power grab. We elected him to end it.
Well, maybe you should have checked your candidate a bit closer, as he never attacked Bush for anything besides “making a speech”. You “elected” him because the media told you so and the DNC manipulated the primaries accordingly.
Ironically, Obama releases Bush’s memos where he overreached for powers
March 2 (Bloomberg) — The Bush administration claimed unfettered presidential powers in the war on terrorism, including sending suspects to other countries where they might be tortured and using the military within U.S. borders, newly released papers show.
Yeah, I knew he did – but what’s with the release? Is it to legitimate hid own power grab, or to distract people by “he was much much worse?” Seems it’s working, because none of those articles mentions Obama’s own reach.
Yale law professor Jack Balkin called this a “theory of presidential dictatorship. They say the battlefield is everywhere. And the president can do anything he wants, so long as it involves the military and the enemy.”