Birthers refers to those people who apparently believe President Obama is not rightfully our sitting President, for those of you who don’t know what mashugana means, it’s Yiddish for crazy. How many time does the state of Hawaii have to verify President Obama’s birth certificate. Will the third time be the charm? The congressmen in this very aggressive interview with Chris Mathews looks VERY uncomfortable to me, like he has been set up to do something he may not totally believe in, just my perspective though.
When George Bush won the presidency in 2000, by the final ruling of the Supreme Court, I accepted that he was my President and THAT was certainly a conflicted election! That is how this country works, its truly a miracle that we have such peaceful elections. Now it’s time for the other side to start governing and accept that they lost.
I love how Chris Mathews refuses to let Rep. Campbell off the hook and insist he answer the question whether HE believes President Obama is a U.S. citizen. By the end of the interview, the congressmen capitulates and finally answers that he believes President Obama is indeed a citizen of the United States.
I really hope that nothing is done with indictments. What a waste of time, just like Whtewater and the impreachment hearings were a waste of time. They cost the country a fortune. I think should there be any ‘paybacks’ that would also be a waste of time and money.
@An Ordinary Joe
You’re speaking to deaf ears and feeling the wrath because you’re not towing the line! Only pre-selected opinions are welcomed here. Didn’t you know that!?
Soon you’ll be in “moderation” (adult-speak for time-out) until you learn to obey.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!
Wrong blog, ringdang…wrong blog. The man behind the curtain is on the dark screen. ARe you trying out for poster child?
@RingDangDoo
Was I feeling the wrath? I must have missed it.
Thanks for correcting me M-H, I thought Emma had been the one to bring out the truth.
Still not clear on what you are talking about, Elena, but enough of the let’s-hate-on-Emma club for tonight. Looking forward to a fresh topic tomorrow.
Eric Holder is a real problem – for one thing he should never have been appointed to Attorney General if all he was going to do was pursue a vendetta against the Bush administration. Say what you want about Whitewater – but at least it wasn’t the Attorney General – the top law enforcement official of the US, behind it. Holder has made it very clear he’s going to pursue these indictments, when there’s a lot more important stuff he should be focusing his attention on.
joe, no wrath coming from me.
—————————————————————–
Elena, usually Emma steps up to the plate and blasts the velvets over things like that. That is why you thought it was Emma. I think if one candidate gets blasted over something, the other candidate should also. Silly me.
———————————————————————
My guess is Holder is wasting everyone’s time and money, GR.
I meant to ask you, what was the name of that CNN program you spoke of? I can’t imagine why they would do a show like that. Isn’t CNN the home of Lou Dobbs? Isn’t he a birther?
I don’t remember what the name of the program was that CNN did that piece saying the US soldiers in Iraq were no better than the terrorists they were fighting. And, this is why I say CNN at times, as well as some Democrats, really took pleasure whenever things were going badly for the USA in the Iraq War.
I never saw that particular show myself, but many people in the military did, including some high up Army General, who decided the system I work on – which used to carry both CNN and FOX to troops over the satellite to troops in Iraq and other places, would no longer be allowed to carry CNN as a result. In fact, while I can’t verify this – the story is he asked CNN to retract their comments to that effect, and they refused, and that’s when he pulled the plug on us carrying CNN. Ever since that, I’ve had a very low view of CNN.
As far as Lou Dobbs, he obviously leans to the right whereas most of CNN is very much leaning to the left on things. I think FOX has some anchors that are left leaning, so it isn’t that one organization is exclusively left leaning or right leaning, but the majority of those in each organization seem to favor a particular direction (left or right).
You won’t get any argument from me about Holder as far as wasting everyone’s time and money. If ever they wanted a very partisan Attorney General, they’ve got one. It was clear even before he got appointed, he was chomping at the bit to pursue his vendetta against the Bush administration. It also has the potential to severely hamper US intelligence efforts in the future. But, he seems not to care, and looks like he’ll be blindly pursuing this for awhile.
I think Holder is in a tough position. The only reason we no longer have a system that allows torture is because Obama is in office. What happens when the next President decides that exporting prisoners to other countries to be tortured is acceptable? What happens if the next President allows our OWN men and women to committ torture? It is hyprocrisy to allow those low level men and women, convicted in the Abu Gharib case to sit in jail while those who actually allowed that type of treatment to occur are free. Isn’t anyone else bothered by that? Either let those army soldiers go, or prosecute those who are resposible for the policy in the first place. Can’t have it both ways!
It IS against all the human rights treaties we have signed and the Geneva convention to torture prisoners in our custody. There is NO moral high ground if we torture, the world is NOT based on a T.V. series with Kiefer Sutherland as its main character.
It’s interesting to me, the Republicans were more than happy to go after Clinton for sex, money, and any other NONE government infractions, but REAL possible legal infractions (FISA rules and torture)of our consitution don’t seem so important. I am not eager to drag our highest government officials through the court, I really am not, but a real democracy has to look inward when we have transgressed our own laws.
I was referring to Gitmo, and waterboarding, which seems to be specifically what Holder is going after. I haven’t heard him refer to the Abu Gharib case. Basically, the Obama administration has decided waterboarding shouldn’t be done, and now they want to go and prosecute everyone involved in the Bush administration who had any part of it. That is the vendetta I was talking about.
One can argue the Abu Gharib case – and it is unclear if what was done there was sanctioned by those above or if some of those low level people were just acting independently.
In any event, say what you want about waterboarding, but at least we don’t chop off people’s heads or other body parts, like our adversaries do. I’m not saying we should ignore the Geneva conventions, but I’m pointing out that there’s no proof our adversaries have any respect for them.
Finally, it’s nice that a new administration can define the things the previous administration has done as criminal, only because of a highly biased Attorney General who is supposed to be the highest law enforcement official in the land, and then prosecute those in the former administration.
Actually, I should clarify what I said above. Holder isn’t looking to make right what happened at Abu Gharib – where senior military officials might have given orders to lower level military personnel. He is looking to target Bush administration non-military officials, over the handling of things at Gitmo, specifically involving enhanced interrogation techniques, one of which was waterboarding. Anyone who thinks Holder is looking to reinvestigate what happened at Abu Gharib – that’s not of interest to him – as it doesn’t involve Republicans. He clearly just has a vendetta against the Bush administration, and what happened at Abu Gahrib happened inside the military. Holder is looking purely at Gitmo, and purely at defining enhanced interrogation techniques as criminal, so he can prosecute high up Bush administration officials. Again, if this happens than any new administration will be able to put in place an Attorney General who can redefine the actions of a previous administration as criminal, and prosecute members of that administration who were involved in that allegedly criminal behavior. The Attorney General, who is supposed to be the chief law enforcement official in the US, should not be allowed to be involved in such clearly partisan behavior. Holder made it clear he was going to do this even before he was nominated, in interviews he said he believed such interrogations rose to the level of criminal behavior. Obama had to know this before he nonimated him, or if he didn’t, and he doesn’t want Bush administration officials prosecuted – he then didn’t do proper vetting of his Attorney General nominee. Obama has said he doesn’t think Bush administration officials, or CIA officials, should be prosecuted – but if so then why did he appoint an Attorney General that does? That’s what I’d like to know. It could just be Obama’s way of keeping his hands clean from this clearly partisan effort.
I left an important word out of one sentence that makes it opposite its meaning – I should have said : “He clearly just has a vendetta against the Bush administration, and NOT what happened at Abu Gharib inside the military”.
My point is, the Abu Gharib orders – IF there were orders that came “from above” came from more senior military officials, not from anyone in the Bush administration. Holder is only looking at investigating what went on at Gitmo, where Bush administration officials, and CIA officials, either approved enhanced interrogation techniques – or in the case of CIA officials, were actually involved in conducting them.
I just read that 28% of Republicans believe the birther nonsense. Tell me this is not true!
Now, on to Keefer Sutherland….Television shows reinforce that evil does lurk in men’s hearts, whether it is weapons of mass destruction or psychotic serial killers seen on Criminal Minds. I guess I get to be the immortalized laughing stock over my analogy to situations that might require our government to take drastic measures over drastic situations. I always like to have a little wiggle room if you really need it. The world can be a harsh and cruel place. I would prefer to keep a few options open so we can deal with individuals rather than having to deal with countries.
Before we get on a moral high horse it might be interesting to think about how many lives would be saved if special operatives could have legally gone into Iraq, taken out Saddam through political assassination, and left. Nice, not particularly, but neither is war. War is just plain old nasty, ugly and evil. It has killed what? 4ooo Americans and wounded 5 times that many?
Getting even is simply ridiculous. This administration needs to make sure it keeps its own nose clean rather than worrying about past history. Prosecution solves nothing. Obama goes out of office and we are right back to where we started, with bad precedent set.
GR, I think whatever general blocked CNN is horrible. If the only news our troops are getting is Fox News, God help us all. VERy scary that can happen. I always felt CNN was very fair regarding the war in Iraq. I would not have felt that way if I had seen something that said our troops are little better than terrorists. It sounds to me that the general was taking on a little censorship to promote his own political agenda.