Obama Channels Cheney

[Kathianne]

Great headline!

Question is, will we be seeing the stormtroopers being called out? (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/thoughts-of-sto.html) Indeed we should.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html


Obama Channels Cheney

Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency.
The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped.

At the heart of Al-Haramain's case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after Al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush Administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known.

In July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the President's right to do so, which should have ended the matter. But the San Francisco panel also returned the case to the presiding district court judge, Vaughn Walker, ordering him to decide if FISA pre-empts the state secrets privilege. If he does, Al-Haramain would be allowed to use the document to establish the standing to litigate.

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker....

[Kathianne]

OMG it's becoming a trend:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030601328.html


George W. Obama?
By Jackson Diehl
Sunday, March 8, 2009; A15

Washington has spent the past couple of weeks debating whether Barack Obama's ambitious agenda and political strategy are more comparable to those of Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Oddly, hardly anyone is talking about the ways in which Obama is beginning to resemble the man who just vacated the White House.Edit: seems they are starting to now...

Most Americans are eager to forget about George W. Bush. But just over seven years ago, Bush found himself in much the same position as the new president today -- leading the country through what was universally considered a national emergency. In the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, Bush's approval rating soared above 80 percent at home. London, Berlin and even Moscow rallied behind him. A front-page analysis in The Post in late November said that "President Bush [has] a dominance over American government . . . rivaling even Franklin D. Roosevelt's command."

Then, according to today's established wisdom, Bush squandered his chance to lead. Three cardinal errors are commonly cited: The president failed to ask a willing nation for sacrifice, instead inviting consumers to shop and heaping on more tax cuts. Rather than forge a bipartisan response to the crisis, he used it to ram through big, polarizing pieces of the Republican Party's ideological agenda -- from asserting presidential powers to breach treaties to eliminating protections for federal workers. Worst, he chose to launch a war of choice in Iraq, thereby shredding what remained of post-Sept. 11 national unity and diverting attention and resources from the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan....

Even Karl Rove makes an appearance here, during the Obama comparison with the above:

...Minutes later, Obama spelled out what he proposes this to mean for 98 percent of Americans: "You will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut . . . and these checks are on the way."

So much for summoning the country to sacrifice. Obama has been no more willing to ask average Americans to pitch in, even once the recession is over, than Bush.

What about bipartisanship? Like Bush, Obama offered a few early gestures. And like Bush, he has been unapologetic about using emergency measures like the stimulus bill to press polarizing Democratic priorities, such as the expansion of Medicaid benefits to the unemployed and union-friendly contracting provisions.

The Bush administration pushed through the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 by suggesting that opponents didn't want to stop another al-Qaeda attack. In his first news conference, Obama suggested that congressional opponents of the stimulus package "believe that we should do nothing" about the economic emergency. Last week his political team launched a concerted and ugly campaign to portray Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party and "I want the president to fail" as its slogan. Republicans who have taken the crisis seriously, offered their own solutions and even supported the president on occasion -- Sen. John McCain comes to mind -- have been ignored.

So Obama hasn't strayed far from Karl Rove's playbook for routing the opposition....

Change we can believe in!

[CockySOB]

They told me if I voted for John McCain that we'd get a third term of Pres/ George Bush. And they were right!

It's a good thing Glen Reynolds doesn't charge royalties for the use of that phrase, as I'd owe him a small fortune already. And just think, Pres. Obama hasn't been in office that long....

[Kathianne]

They told me if I voted for John McCain that we'd get a third term of Pres/ George Bush. And they were right!

It's a good thing Glen Reynolds doesn't charge royalties for the use of that phrase, as I'd owe him a small fortune already. And just think, Pres. Obama hasn't been in office that long....

It's way too scary what Obama is doing. He's like Bush on steroids with spending, though their agendas are vastly different, their fiscal restraint is the same.

[Yurt]

when the liberals are silent on a thread....

[moderate democrat]

It's way too scary what Obama is doing. He's like Bush on steroids with spending, though their agendas are vastly different, their fiscal restraint is the same.interesting. Bush was spending like a drunken sailor throughout his first term and I don't recall hearing any republicans anywhere calling for a primary opponent for him in 2004. It seems that this whining about fiscal restraint is contrived. You don't really mind spending boatloads of money, you just don't like the way democrats want to spend it.

[Silver]

Come now...whats REALLY interesting is now that the Messiah is spending even greater amounts of money than Bush, a good bit of it nothing but pork.....there is no outrage from the dim Dems....while they made hysterical rants about Bush in his first term for excessive spending....

its the lefts hypocrisy we find absolutely breath taking....

[moderate democrat]

Come now...whats REALLY interesting is now that the Messiah is spending even greater amounts of money than Bush, a good bit of it nothing but pork.....there is no outrage from the dim Dems....while they made hysterical rants about Bush in his first term for excessive spending....

its the lefts hypocrisy we find absolutely breath taking....


I, for one, never complained about the fact that Bush was spending money...I only complained about what he was spending it on. I, quite honestly, cannot recall ANY democrats ranting hysterically about Bush's spending, only about his spending priorities.

The point is: republicans are the party that are supposed to be vehemently opposed to ALL spending, yet no republican ever suggested that someone should challenge Bush in a primary fight in 2004 because of his lack of republican spending discipline. Now THAT is hypocrisy!

[Silver]

The WTC collapse from terrorist attack and stabilization of the economy in the aftermath was quite expensive....
Then there was the military action in Afghanistan to pay for, men, equipment, etc.
And then another operation in Iraq to pay for....

So was setting up the Homeland Security Network to protect the country...
And then there was the storm damage to Florida, Mississippi, New Orleans, and various other areas of the Gulf Coast....

I can understand why you would find a problem with his spending priorities....you being a dim Dem....

[Kathianne]

I, for one, never complained about the fact that Bush was spending money...I only complained about what he was spending it on. I, quite honestly, cannot recall ANY democrats ranting hysterically about Bush's spending, only about his spending priorities.

The point is: republicans are the party that are supposed to be vehemently opposed to ALL spending, yet no republican ever suggested that someone should challenge Bush in a primary fight in 2004 because of his lack of republican spending discipline. Now THAT is hypocrisy!

Nope, that's untrue. You would be describing extreme libertarians, not Republicans.

[moderate democrat]

The WTC collapse from terrorist attack and stabilization of the economy in the aftermath was quite expensive....
Then there was the military action in Afghanistan to pay for, men, equipment, etc.
And then another operation in Iraq to pay for....

So was setting up the Homeland Security Network to protect the country...
And then there was the storm damage to Florida, Mississippi, New Orleans, and various other areas of the Gulf Coast....

I can understand why you would find a problem with his spending priorities....you being a dim Dem....

Katrina is a non-issue. I was pointing out that you did not call for a fiscally conservative primary opponent in 2004. Nice attempted dodge.:poke:

[moderate democrat]

Nope, that's untrue. You would be describing extreme libertarians, not Republicans.

so...you are saying that you were perfectly OK with Bush's spending... and you only have a problem with Obama's priorities?

IF that is not what you are saying, can you tell me whether you were calling for a primary opponent for Bush in '04?

[Kathianne]

so...you are saying that you were perfectly OK with Bush's spending... and you only have a problem with Obama's priorities?

IF that is not what you are saying, can you tell me whether you were calling for a primary opponent for Bush in '04?

What I was referring to:


republicans are the party that are supposed to be vehemently opposed to ALL spending
Again, that would be libertarians, in extreme mode.

[Silver]

Obama is making Bush look like a freekin' tightwad.....

[Silver]

so...you are saying that you were perfectly OK with Bush's spending... and you only have a problem with Obama's priorities?

I'm not totally in support of the Messiah's priorities, but my biggest gripe is co-mingling all the spending into one big pile of crap....stimulus, pork, tax changes, etc. should all have been passed in separate packets that Congress and voters could analyze as separate units...the way he did this just proves his "transparency' claim was bullshit...

IF that is not what you are saying, can you tell me whether you were calling for a primary opponent for Bush in '04?

Katrina is a non-issue. I was pointing out that you did not call for a fiscally conservative primary opponent in 2004. Nice attempted dodge.????
---------

I'm not calling for a primary opponent for 2012 either....can't dodge something that ONLY YOU brought up

[Silver]

And speaking of 'dodging'....

You've manage to dodge the topic of this thread from the git go....

the topic being ....

"Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency", that VP Cheney should feel vindicated by Obama's, Bush's and his own idea meshing so well....:poke:

Don't wanna rant and rave about getting stabbed in the back? or are you gonna deny it all insist Obama is still holds your leftwing extremist views...