My wish list for the Obama administration

In no particular order the Obama Administration should:
 
1)  Start the criminal investigation of the Bush administration.
 
2)  End wiretapping without a warrant.
 
3)  Hold the Financial institutions accountable for the money Bush gave them.
 
4)  Eliminate all private contractors in Iraq and begin the withdrawal.
 
5)  Send Special Forces into Pakistan to hunt down the terrorists.
 
6)  Shut down Guantanamo and end the rendering of suspected terrorists to other nations.
 
{;-) Dan in Miami
 
So what are your top priorities?
hasEML = false;


72 Comments

Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.
0

Obama keeps saying he's all about looking forward not backwards

Rajah's picture

So I seriously doubt he'll go after Bush and his henchmen. I want him to but I don't think it's going to happen, at least not for Bush or Cheney.

Another Santayana quote

FearlessFreep's picture

 "Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it." Looking forward my granny!

Dems may prosecute Bush criminals

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

From Faux News:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."

"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities."

President-elect Barack Obama has not closed off the possibility of prosecutions, but hinted he does not favor them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/18/pelosi-open-prosecution-bush-administration-officials/

{;-) Dan in Miami

This might give them no choice....

TheWreck's picture

http://www.slate.com/id/2208688/

To quote the opening paragraph:

"When Vice President Dick Cheney told the Weekly Standard last week, "I think on the left wing of the Democratic Party there are some people who believe that we really tortured," he probably wasn't thinking about Susan J. Crawford, convening authority of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general, is hardly the kind of hippie moonbat Cheney would like to poke fun at. And that's why everything changed this morning when the Washington Post published a front-page interview by Bob Woodward, in which Crawford stated without equivocation that the treatment of alleged 20th Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani at Guantanamo Bay was "torture." "

Some of these jamokes were behind Iran-Contra.  And some of them even hail from good ol' Watergate.  If you don't throw asses in stir, you get repeat performances like this.  After all, you don't say, "Well, we didn't catch the murderer right at the scene.  So, let's bygones be bygones and look to the future, not the past."  Part of the whole exercise in prosecution is to make some potential perps to think twice before they felonize.

 

TheWreck

It's time to start construction of The National Roller Coaster

Coaster's picture

But this probably isn't the thread for that. 

But just the same, I'm thinking about 1400 feet tall, 300 mph, and ten miles long as it winds its way around the lies and giant pitfalls of the last administration.  Or, if that's too abstract, or dare I say too partisan, it can be a premier tourist draw as it careens down the features of a lesser viewed section of the Grand Canyon. 

It's time America reclaimed its greatness in a way to which the entire world (except Rajah)  can truly relate. 

Obama must repudiate the criminal policies of the Bush regime

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

If he doesn't people will rightfully assume that he plans to do similar things with his administration.

{;-) Dan in Miami

 

3 words

gamerarocks's picture

War Crimes Trials.

It won't happen, but it should.

It'd be nice, but it would require hard evidence on a few things

TMundo's picture

you could get a few of the lower guys, but you'd need some hard evidence that the war was for false reasons.  I don't know that you'd find that kind of evidence on paper.  You might end up with a lot of hearsay, which is all we have now anyway.

As for guantana, you might find some recourse there, how a criminal black hole like that can exist is beyond me, but there shoud be a heck of a lot of stuff on paper.

Legalize marijuana!?!? Perhaps you should consider....

Rajah's picture

Ha Ha! Could see that happening on cocain or crack but on weed?

TMundo_McHeimschins_S._Preston_Esq.,_III's picture

...the big issue is that once illicit drugs were made 'illicit' or illegal, that's when crime went up. Years ago a doctor could prescribe cocaine and a variety of other drugs to the so-called 'patient' Problems like alcoholism were treated with drugs like morphine, hence getting the user addicted to a drug that was easier to deal with. Where a raging alcoholic would get into fights or beat their spouse/children, a morphine addict would go into their room and pass out on the bed. It didn't solve the problem, but it made it easier to deal with.

Drugs were first made illicit for blacks, because it was thought that blacks weren't smart enough to not abuse them, and it was abuse that made them illegal. Also research into the unhealthyness of the drugs. Cocaine was originally perscribed as a pickmeup, it was freely given to black dock builders in the form of Pep-pills to make them work faster. It wasn't untill people began to realize that it was actually really bad for your helth that legal restrictions were put in place. That, unfortunately, opened the door for an incredibly large underworld of drugtrafficing to emerge.

So why make drugs legal?

-It disbands black market drugs. Why does that matter? Because why buy drugs from the degenerate on the corner, or the guy that weighs his shit out in front of his 3 year old kid, when you could buy it in a store or shop where it's deemed safe and not tampered with. No gangs or crime associated with drugs. Gangs would of course have to reappropriate their business to make up for the grand financial loss. Attention should be given to this as guns are a big thing amongst gangs as well.

-Quality through Regulation -- As long as big tobacco and other greedy companies are not allowed to screw with the product(s) recreational drugs should be deemed safe under inpection by professionals. You can't trust a drug dealer to sell a product that is untainted. Especially with cocaine, a drug that is rarely received by its user as pure, but is usually cut or mixed with any white powder that is handy. Anything from ground up pills to baking soda, any white powder will do. And the next guy who gets it can do the same if he wants to sell it for a profit. With drugs bought in a store, you can certify that the drugs sold are safe (to a certain degree,)pure, and unadulterated. Even if drugs are to be cut with a secondary additive to decrease potentcy or increase profit, you can be assured that a whatever's added is safe.

-Regulation of Addiction -- Obviously you don't want drugs to be available to the point where abuse rates increase. Any purchaser of recreational narcotics that aren't deemed, I dunno, family safe. Cocain and heroin come to mind immediately, could be purchaced under the watchful eye of a regulator/counselor. You're friendly neihborhood dealer won't offer that. The counsler should be there to ensure that the drug is done in a safe manner. How that works is up to the law, but extra care ought to be taken. If you want illicit drugs, you should be able to get them, but you should also get counseling along with them. Again, the drugs are available to the point where a black market is eliminated, but not over regulated to the point where one is created.

Taxation - There is money to be made on the state and federal level that could pay for all the counseling, restricting, inspecting, and producing.

Personally, if drugs are to be made legal, it should be patterned after a working system like the one in amsterdam. Right now, marijuana has been legalized for medical usage in California, but no steps have been taken to make the situation loophole proof, for example:

-The pharmacutical 'shops' are supplied by growers. Top become a grower, all one has to do is take a class that consists of a couple seminars on how the system works. A girl from L.A. told me she lived in a house owned by a so-called grower. She said that the cops never snooped about the location and this freed up the place to traffic other things through like guns etc. I also wonder what's to stop the growers from transporting the stuff out of state. In this case, all cars exiting California should be inspected by dogs.

-All a person has to do to get a prescription for their very own marijuana card is to say they have chronic pain. That person may not require marijuana to relieve the pain, I personally don't find marijuana to be a pain killer, but I'm sure there are uses for it. I've heard it works well for people receiving chemotherapy. However, maybe the person has a friend that smokes. That person can now get weed for their friend, and with medical insurance it's quite cheap. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.

A legalized system should be an airtight system. With high penalties imposed if one breaks the law, i.e. sells to a person not permitted to carry. The prices should be high enough to discourage use, but low enough to discorage any sort of black market from being created. For example, ciggarettes are sold in the city on the black market, alcohol is not.

Obama will demand total access...

michael3b's picture

...to Michelle Obama tonight.  After that speech, she will have no choice but to submit to everything and anything The Big O desires.  I imagine a giant, purple mink cape was delivered, along with a glow-in-the-dark leopard-print speedo, to 1600 PA this afternoon.

"Hail to the Chief, Shelly."

Re-think this so-called War on Drugs

Coaster's picture

Mexican drug lords are stronger and more vicious than ever.  We've done little to reduce demand, as locking up drug addicts without providing drug treatment has had little effect on society other than stuffing out prisons to capacity.  During the Nixon administration, he reduced crime by opeing treatment clinics.  In the last 30 years, the Republicans have had them all shut down, as it's not the American Way to treat addicts, we must punish them.  Well, it looks like we've ended up punishing ourselves with the highest incarceration rate on the planet and unabated crime. 

Time for a change. <--(I just made that up)

That's my quick litmus test

jazzdrive3's picture

That's my quick litmus test on whether or not a politician is reasonable or not, or just blowing hot air like 99% of them.  If they are for legalizing drugs, especially marijuana, then the pol at least believes in some shred of personal liberty.

If not, they're just another hack and ingrained in the status quo.  We'll see which one Obama is.  I know he's claimed in passing he wants to legalize Mary Jane, but it hasn't been brought up since he actually had a chance at winning the election.

Well never mind.  Just read

jazzdrive3's picture

Well never mind.  Just read that Obama has nominated Eric Holder for Attorney General.  He probably couldn't have picked a more totalitarian scumbag.

A few things Holder has fought for:

- proposed more stringent penalties for terrorizing and jailing medical marijuana users, really the pinnacle of  assholeness.

- aspired to clamp down on the free Internet by imposing "reasonable restrictions"

"Drug warrior, gun grabber and fan of tear-gas-fueled paramilitary raids to resolve child custody disputes. That's Eric Holder, our new Attorney General."

Ughh...

TMundo's picture

...I'm for legalized marijuana, it would take a large chunk out of the illegal drug trade, but it must be done with care.  What's going on in California is a sad joke, and that's just for medical use.  I supposed it's a moot point now, but if is to be done, it should be done right.

Resouces wasted, for what

gamerarocks's picture

I won't get into the pros and cons, we all know them, but the continued classification of marijuana as illegal has been a failure, on many levels.

Jazzdrive is correct though; with Holder at his post the efforts will be increased methinks, when they should be moving the opposite direction.

History repeating as a deadly farce.

TheWreck's picture

Hey, Coaster - don't you know that we've got a history on the success of Prohibition?  Sure we do - it was written into the Constitution, even!

Then, of course, there were the gangsters and the widespread scoffing of laws and the fact that the prohibition didn't REALLY work...

So it got written OUT of the Constitution.

That's the problem with the way history is taught (and I suspect that it's gotten no better than when *I* larned my sums off the back of a shovel) - you go through the wars, hit on the themes of America - We're The Good Guys!.  And ignore any ambiguity or social history that doesn't fit either of those two subjects.

 

TheWreck

A couple others I'd like to see at the top

gamerarocks's picture

Infrastructure - be it transportation or energy, this nation's infrastructure is already on borrowed time.

An energy policy - One that doesn't cater to any particular interest, but one that has goals that will make this nation energy indepedent within our lifetime.  Be that from solar, wind, hydrogen or other means, there must be achievable realistic goals that will get us all there.

R&D - Science has taken a pretty sound beating in this country.  Don't believe me?  Ask any reputable biology teacher about the evolution theory as it's taught in schools.  Ask John McCain about his 'pork project' at a Chicago planetarium.  Ask NASA about their 20% budget reduction by the Bush administration.  Priorities?  Look around, there's a lot to choose from, but in my mind the encouraging progress made in desalinazation would relieve drought in the west and make dependance on Mother Nature less of a factor.

We've dabbled in Drugs, now for some SEX

Coaster's picture

Two topics:

1.  Stop wasting taxpayer bucks on abstinence only education.  There's not one shred of evidence to show that these programs work and a boatload of studies have been done, many federally sponsored, that have demonstrated that these programs not only don't work, but often have the undesired effect of increasing pregnancy and disease rates. George W. Bush's administration has spent One and One-Half BILLION  DOLLARS on abstinence only education programs.  If ever there needed to be a shining example of why religion should not be allowed to intrude into government, these laughable abstinence programs would be it. 

B.  Drop the "Gag Rule."  This is a rule put in place by Dumbya on his first day in office that restricts government funded clinics from mentioning or participating in abortion counseling. The Bushistas would rather see an impoverished African woman bear another child than terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Again, this is an unwarranted intrusion of religion into our public policy.

We have actually combined these two fucked up policies and have been spending money trying to teach abstinence only education in poor African countries rather than spending that money on AIDS drugs and contraception.  This is a practice that shames me as an American. General kudos, though, to Bush for his spending on AIDS research and on programs to treat and prevent AIDS in Africa.

 

Well, I've worked Sex and Drugs into this discussion. I'll leave it to one of you others to work in Rock and Roll.

The Republican VP nominee's (growing) family...

TheWreck's picture

...is the most potent argument that abstinence-baded education is worth ka-ka-doo-doo.

Either...

1) Palin engaged in abstinence-based education, and it failed.

or

2) Palin DIDN'T engage in A-BE, thus showing that if such a darling of the conservatives couldn't be bothered to do it, what good is it?

 

TheWreck

But every baby is a GIFT, Wreck...

HS's picture

...and didn't ya know that conception begins at hand-holding?

 

HS

Actually...

TheWreck's picture

...I thought it started at the Gleaming of the Eye.

TheWreck

All kidding aside...

Rajah's picture

The tax revenue that could be generated would sure help the states that are strapped for cash right now. Plus it would be a good cash crop of the farmers. We wanna help out the farmers don't we? Besides we founded this nation on a cash crop that should have been illegal, tobacco. Seems hypocritical to me that one's illegal and not the other. Sure marijuana kills brain cells but so does beer. You'd think the government would have learned from their abolition of alcohol.

How about a quoteable quote?

TMundo's picture

Can we get a quotable quote from Obama?  How about he tells the media to shut up or something.  You know it was interesting, someone brought up the line, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself."  It was said by FDR during the great depression (it was FDR right? Not Teddy?)  You know, I blame the media, in part, for making people afraid.  Like when they say things like, "This is the worst financial disastar since the great depression."  People stopped spending their money until after Obama got elected.  Well I noticed it on my job, and I work in advertising, basically.

Fear doesn't stimulate the economy, and whether or not the bank problem was the worst thing since... isn't important.  The point is that the story shouldn't be made to seem better or worse than it is.  The story should be reported, and that's it.  The media just can't do that, everything has to be given a certain finness to make it seem more interesting, or more like a disaster movie.

Last week a plane made a crash landing on the Hudson.  This weekend all the stations were calling it Miracle on the Lake.  By the end of the weekend they had mapped out a play by play with computer animation and recordings from the black box to show everyone exactly what had happened.  I'm glad it was a story with a happy ending, because if wasn't... meh.

The media should be punished for milking it to death, especially when it's bad news.  And moreso when that news is about the economy.  If there's bad news about the economy, it should be told with the least amount of UMPHH, the lease amount of overindulgent depressive sappiness we get from a tearjerking movie.  If I want to have my heartstrings torn out, I'll watch some fiction, but if you're going to give me bad news in reality, don't over-do it and make it seem worse, it doesn't help.

You know Michael Moore made some interesting points about this in Bowling for Columbine, and he's really got a point.  Media, get a clue.

I don't watch the local Atlanta news

Rajah's picture

Talk about scaring people, that's all they do from their body bag journalism to their constant harping on the drought, West Nile virus, AIDs and the Bird Flu. The ditching in the Hudson was a welcomed break. They milk it cause there's so little good news to report. Me, I get my kicks by watching the History Channel talk all week about the end of the world. Celebrate good times, COME ON!

Raise the top income tax rate to 50 or 60%

FearlessFreep's picture

That'll still be lower than in the '50s. (I can dream, can't I?)

 

Ya know, Mr. Freep...

Coaster's picture

For a Canadian, you're mighty unAmerican.

In all actuality, if you take the top rate of 36% and add to it Social Security and Medicare taxes, we're approaching that range. If you add property taxes, sales taxes, and yearly license fees, inheritance taxes, and and capital gains taxes, we're solidly in that range.  And don't get me started on business taxes...

It's almost like we're European..... or Canadian.

Bush regime war crimes are a slam dunk

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

There is no way they are NOT guilty.  They invaded a country that did nothing to us.  It was a Preemptive War.  Anyone who proposes a Preemptive War is proposing a war crime.  It is crucial that this concept be firmly established in the law.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Repeal the Patriot Act

Rajah's picture

The single biggest attack on our civil liberties

I disagree. No War Crimes Trials.

Coaster's picture

Bush can say the invasion was authorized by UN resolutions.  Bush can say we haven't formerly declared war since WWII, and that didn't stop us from going to Korea, Vietnam, and Bosnia. 

The trial and charges if brought would be seen as an extremely partisan effort in country that is already far too divided. 

It'st time to move on, and let history judge our outgoing Torture President.

Some of these involve bullying private enterprise:

Wulfgar's picture


Roll back 8 years of Bush; nekkid pubes only!

 


Free kittens, puppies, Guinness, pot and meth!

 

Mandatory sterilization for neocons!

 

Abolish the FCC!

 

Create a dozen all-anime channels!

 

Take all live-action programming off of alleged cartoon channels!

 

Make Adult Swim to go 24/7!

 

Get rid of commercials on cable w/o an increase in price!

 

Free high-speed Interweb!

 

Free cable!

 

No fake boobs!

 

Leave non-commercial file-sharing "pirates" the fuck alone.

 

Execute the RIAA for being a bunch of pigfuckers.

 

Revert all of George Lucas' story additions to the original Star Wars trilogy; allow nothing beyond simple cleaning-up of SFX glitches.

 

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!!!11!1!

 

 

 

 

 


~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~

 

I'll have to agree with the Coastanader

Rajah's picture

And not cause he'll hurt me if I don't. As much as I'd enjoy seeing Bush and Cheney suffer through a long embarassing investigation and trial we have biggger problems to deal with in this country. Obama doesn't have time to get bogged down and neither does Congress. Maybe it will be enough for Bush to leave office as the worse president we've ever had. That disgrace will be his punishment. Better for the Obama adminstation spend their time healing this country.

Say, can we get Richard Clark back in terrorism intelligence?

TMundo's picture

He was the one that worked for Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and then resigned or got fired (I can't remeber which) when the Bush administration wouldn't listen to him, or so he claims.

Why not Roy Clark?

Rajah's picture

HEE HAW!!!

My suggestions

HS's picture

1) No impeachment of Bush and Cheney - as others have said, it's divisive and it's time to move forward, to a clean slate of "change."

2) I agree about getting Blackwater and other unsavory special interest groups out of Iraq (and our own troops, too - gradually of course).  In rotating shifts, give 1/3 of the withdrawn troops some extended R&R, move 1/3 of them to Afghanistan/Pakistan, and train 1/3 of them to guard our southern borders.

3) Shut down Gitmo or - at the very least - discharge every senior officer in charge there for letting such human rights abuses continue festering.  Immediate review of every prisoner's case.

4) Shut down Walter Reed - if what I've heard about the place is true, then no soldier deserves to rot away in there.

5) Comprehensive energy reform that is partially tied into the automakers bailout packages - mass production of hybrids to drive down their cost of production by making them the production norm and not the exception.  Require each automaker to form a well-funded (and possibly government-monitored or subsidized) task force on building hydrogen or electric cars, the next step in cleaner roads.  More wind power and solar power (tax breaks to homeowners who install solar panels?).  Energy reform would also include developing a light rail, subway, or tram-type mass-transit system in every metropolitan area greater than, say, 1 million people.  Make it safe, make it cheap, make it easy to use.  Extend it out to the airports.  In the short term, it will even create jobs!

6) Illegal immigration reform that includes not just more troops guarding the border, but also a chance for current illegals to change their status pending a review of their criminal record and a willingness to pay any back taxes.  Our economy can certainly use the extra tax revenue coming in.  Also, honest talks with Mexico about what THEY are doing to combat this problem - sex education, less bureaucracy, etc.  After all, the problem starts in these second-world countries where opportunities for work are so limited.

7) "Free" universal health care for everyone!  Each person gets one physical per year, plus the requisite pap smears, colon cleansings, etc. every X number of years.  Consider including alternative medicines in the coverage (i.e. holistic healers). 

These would be my top priorities.  I guess I'd put energy reform and universal health care on the top of the list.

 

HS

Coaster your argument is self defeating

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

You point out that we have had plenty of illegal wars so therefor we should ignore this one in Iraq?  Huh?

It is now time to put a stop to Gulf of Tonkin bullshit.  Never again should we allow our political leaders to lead us by the nose into illegal and immoral military action. 

The Bush scum must be held accountable or we will have no end to these ruinous military actions.

And by the way, did you know that Bush did not pardon any of his cronies?  Not even Cheney.

{;-) Dan in Miami

My wish: freedom

Anonymous's picture

How about just leaving us all the hell alone for a change? Have these leftists ever heard of individual liberty and responsibility?

Bambam can take his nanny state ambitions and shove them.

Nanny state?

Lazymichael3b's picture

You mean as opposed to the S and M/ Dominatrix Sate we've been living in?

I wished...

TheWreck's picture

...that the Republicans had embraced individual liberty and responsibility over the past 8 years.

TheWreck

By the way

gamerarocks's picture

Now that you've been sworn in as President, perhaps instead of focusing solely on keeping the jobs in industries that have caused many of their own problems, why not take some of that $350 billion or the proposed $1 trillion and put your money where your campaign mouth has been.  If education is as important as you claim, then budget attacks by certain governors on higher education in their states should stop being an issue.

How would YOUR state feel if 34% of the funds allocated to state universities was gone?

Until was can elect said morons out of office, we voted you in.  Education opportunites were a big platform plank.  I'll be waiting.

Big Ed is far greedier than Big Oil

Anonymous's picture

So when do universities, colleges, high schools and elementary schools start to become lean, mean, efficient and competitive? When do the sclerotic, reactionary, lazy, corrupt, greedy teacher unions start cutting back, saving money and actually teaching instead of subsidizing illiteracy? When do the multiple layers of Administration get fired for being useless? When does the utterly-worthless Department of Education get the hell off our backs and disband?

When does Big Ed start to "share the pain" instead of demanding that politicians steal more and more of working people's earnings to prop up their old-fashioned, rickety structures festooned with unaffordable and obsolete practices?

It's time to hit Big Ed with a windfall-profits tax for stealing so many trillions of tax dollars and excreting dumber and dumber alleged "graduates" upon the populace.

Big Oil produces vital energy for a modern world and gets beaten to death by political parasites in return. Big Ed produces absolutely squat and is subsidized by those same worthless parasites.

Obama's first acts as Prez

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's new administration ordered all federal agencies and departments on Tuesday to stop any pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff, halting last-minute Bush orders in their tracks.

"This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration," the White House said in a statement issued just hours after Obama took office.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090121/pl_nm/us_obama_regulations

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  Obama also suspended all "trials" at Gitmo for 120 days in order to review the process.

Obama has already had the GITMO cases put on hold...

TMundo's picture

...for the next 120 days, so that the situation can be examined.  I really think he's gonna shut that place down, or if anything, make it completely reformed.  There are many people there that have been proven innocent, but are stuck there because no other countries want them.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.justice/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html

Obama ends war on terror

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 23, 2009; A01

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counter-terrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons.

And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929_pf.html

{:-) Dan in Miami

Is the War on Drugs next?

FearlessFreep's picture

 Probably not, alas.

Obama to End Abortion Counseling Gag Rule by End of Day

Coaster's picture

Clinics receiving aid from us will now no longer be shrugging their shoulders at impoverished African women who wish not to bring another child in this world.

Next round of abortions is on me!  I'm buying! 

In all actuality, most family planning clinics funded/aided by Bush & Co. also lacked funding for contraceptives.  Why was this?  I don't know; I find that practice baffling. As near as I can figure out, the people who ran these programs for Bush were not just anti-abortion, but were also anti-sex. You get this kind of crazy shit when you mix politics with religion and when you ignore good science to satisfy political objectives.

GooooooooooooOBAMA!

Ch-ch-ch-changes! Turn and face the strain

Rajah's picture

Who was the first to limit the president's power? Why it was ole George Washington himself! This new president is definitely a different kind of president from old Shrub. No more blowing your nose and wiping your fanny on the Constitution.

And another thing

FearlessFreep's picture

I hope they introduce an "entertainment tax," on cable TV and advertising and such, that would give PBS full funding so they wouldn't have to waste time on those annoying fundraisers!

 

But-but I enjoy those fundraisers!

Rajah's picture

And Bastardpiece Theater and those old British comedies from the 70s. A young Judy Dench! <drools>

GOP delays vote on Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, has vowed to be an independent attorney general, and to break with the counter-terrorism policies of the Bush administration.
 

Under questioning from the Judiciary Committee last week, Holder said he believes the interrogation technique known as waterboarding amounts to torture.

Just two weeks ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the use of waterboarding, which simulates drowning, saying it has produced valuable intelligence in the war on terror.
 

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-21-voa62.cfm

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  God I love this.  The Bush regime scum are scarred silly that the new Attorney General will put them in jail where they belong.

I doubt they're losing too much sleep

FearlessFreep's picture

BHO isn't eager to undermine public confidence in "the system." But I like to think they're slightly worried.

Nervous al-Qaeda tries to insult Obama

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

They have called him a "house negro" among other things.

From the Washington Post:

The torrent of hateful words [from al-Qaeda] is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda's skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.

With Obama, al-Qaeda faces an entirely new challenge, experts say: a U.S. president who campaigned to end the Iraq war and to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who polls show is well liked throughout the Muslim world.

Whether the pro-Obama sentiment will last remains to be seen. On Friday, the new administration signaled that it intends to continue at least one of Bush's controversial counter-terrorism policies: allowing CIA missile strikes on alleged terrorist hideouts in Pakistan's autonomous tribal region.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401703_pf.html

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  Obama may see his popularity slide a bit in the Muslim world.  He will never be as hated as the fascist scum of the Bush regime.

PPS:  God I love reading good news in the paper after 8 years of Bush crap.

If he keeps killing children

jazzdrive3's picture

His Rep Will Decline There Even If No Civilians Are Killed

Coaster's picture

I'd call the tribal chieftains reporting of airstrike casualties less than accurate.  According to those Al Qaeda supporters, our missile strikes have never killed a single terrorist: We've just been killing women, farmers, and children. 

Riiiiiiight.

Good news out of Pakistan for a change

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

From Faux News:

LAHORE, Pakistan —  Pakistan said Sunday it formally took control of the main operational facility of a charity allegedly linked to the Mumbai attacks, underscoring its ongoing effort to ease international pressure over militancy on its soil.

India says the banned Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba staged the November attacks that killed 164 people. Soon after, the U.N. declared that Jamaat-ud-Dawa — popular with many Pakistanis for its relief work — was a front for Lashkar, prompting Pakistan's crackdown.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482704,00.html

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  Cutting off funding to the terrorists will be more effective at shutting them down than shooting missiles into Pakistan.  We should probably send special forces into Pakistan instead of bombing them.

Shurely you jest, Dan.

RidingFool's picture

Quote:

We should probably send special forces into Pakistan instead of bombing them.

I'm  not quite sure what you meant by that, but I don't think 'sending' American troops 'into' one more country and calling it a freedom march is a good thing - you know, jackboots and all. But, I could be wrong.

Keep those missiles flying. It works for Hamas.

Just remember we didn't start the fire

Rajah's picture

Leaving them a safe haven in Pakistan is so stupid, I mean it's so Bush.

<nt>

michael3b's picture

wrong place.

Education needs more, not less, money.

michael3b's picture

 

The union is a problem, but the dough to attract qualified...what am I even saying? 

Big Oil is LESS greedy than...anything on this earth?  Are you insane?  Pretty sure we have not gone to war over teachers' salaries yet.

 

edit: screw it, I'm not moving this thing again.  This is in response to the anonymite.

 

I do not jest Mr. Fool

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

We have no interest in taking over Pakistan.  What we want to do is hunt down the terrorists there.  These terrorists, by the way, are very unpopular with the Pakistani people.  Our special forces could probably get help from the locals. 

When you bomb people sometimes you can't predict who will get killed.  When you look someone in the face and then shoot them, at the very least you can avoid killing women and children.

I think Obama will be working with the UN on the huge terrorism problem of Pakistan.

{;-) Dan in Miami

 

 

Let's see if I have this right

RidingFool's picture

In the preceeding eight years, America has launched two wars against countries that have done absolutely nothing to her, ignoring the country of origin of the terrorists who leveled New York City. Oil talks, bullshit walks into foreign countries and struts on carrier decks bragging about non-existant victory.

In the folly that is known as Afghanistan, America feebly attempts to win a war with no troops, since they're all committed to the attainment of democracy in Iraq. Even bloodthirsty Russia couldn't tame Afghanistan. I'll leave it to you to believe that America can.

Meanwhile, not content to be at war in two countries, America launches air strikes into a third, Pakistan. Air strikes don't require troops. How sweet for the folly-think back in der homeland - a war without troops! What will they think of next? 

Dubious, at best. Impossible at worst.

Your country is going broke, Dan. You don't have the money to walk into another country with anything, let alone more troops. Your military equipment is worn out. Your troops are worn out. Your country is worn out. You can no longer afford to pay for it all.

Give it a rest. Take your troops home. Reduce your military budget and let your middle class have a break from funding foreign adventures. Stop boarding ships at sea in international waters, against international law. Stop thinking that military action is the obvious solution to your country's imagined slights and hurts. As your country should have figured out by now, an army isn't the answer, and hasn't been for some time.

The History channel is presently running a series on the Viet Nam war. Watch, and learn.

When the war effort hits home...

Rajah's picture

My nephew has joined the Marine reserves without telling my sister or her Rush Limpburger watching husband. He's 18 so he didn't have to have their permission. I'm sure the Marines hooked him with that promise of paying for his college but you know what will happen.

This war in Afghanistan is dubious at best. Did we not learn anything from the Russians?And why with all the advanced technology today they haven't eliminated the threat of friendly fire? Smart bombs indeed!

Mr. Fool I was opposed to invading Iraq

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

In the period after 9/11 it didn't take me long to figure out there were no terrorists in Iraq.  Only a whole bunch of oil that Cheney, Bush and their cronies wanted.  I wanted us to stay the course in Afghanistan and rebuild that country with the help of the rest of the world.

Obama is now talking about removing our troops in Iraq in 16 months and putting at least 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan.

We could also bring troops back home from Europe and Asia where they are no longer needed.  The US military empire is too expensive to maintain.  I would cut the budget of the Pentagon by 75%,

We can do that and still fight our real enemies who are currently located in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

{;-) Dan in Miami

I don't think it's necessary to take over any country to fight

McBoggles_McElderberries_McHeimschins, III's picture

...to fight terrorism. Although invasion of Afganistan was somewhat necessary, taking over the entire nation isn't what we need to do. We need to get rid of the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Small amounts of terrorists forces can do that.

Telling a country that if they harbor terrorists they are terrorists to puts us at war with the entire country, a rather large financial endevour.

Of course saving money wouldn't as much of an issue had we not invaded Iraq.

small amounts of task forces

correction's picture

.

No, terrorist forces sounds good

Rajah's picture

Sending in our own terrorists to fight their terrorists just might work! Imagine what a Dexter could do over there, he could clean up the situation in a week!

Yeah!

gamerarocks's picture

He could put on his Dex-Star suit and really.....oh.....wrong one again.

Impeach Jim Gibbons!

Obama was right to slam Rush Limbaugh

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Mr Hillbilly Heroin is now the head of the Republican Party.  There just is no other person who speaks for the GOP with as much authority.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Obama goes after the terrorists that threaten the USA

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

From Faux News:

More than 10,000 U.S. troops are headed to Afghanistan immediately, a senior U.S. defense official told FOX News on Tuesday.

The Obama administration is expected to announce by Wednesday that it will send two additional Army brigades and at least half will be Marines, the official said. An Army brigade usually consists of 3,500 troops.

That would be a down payment on a larger influx of U.S. forces that has been widely expected this year. It would get a few thousand forces in place in time for the increase in fighting that usually comes with warmer weather and ahead of national midyear elections [in Afghanistan?].

A spokesman for Gen. David McKiernan told FOX News that they had already started to build camp barracks for the troops in anticipation of the announcement -- knowing how sensitive the timing is given the spring fighting season.

It generally takes about three months for an Army brigade to deploy to the combat zone.

This is the first time the new commander in chief has sent significant numbers of new forces into battle. Obama campaigned on a new strategy for the Afghanistan war, but he has taken his time to approve the new forces. 

In addition to the 10,000 troops, 6,000 were recently deployed, meeting half the request of U.S. commanders who have been contemplating sending up to 30,000 more soldiers to bolster the 33,000 already there.

FOX News' Jennifer Griffin and Justin Fishel  and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/17/troops-headed-afganistan/

{;-) Dan in Miami

Yeah, that'll have them quaking in their boots

RidingFool's picture

just like the Russians did previously.

More boots on the ground means the USA...

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

...will stop fighting the Taliban on the cheap.  The Taliban are not popular.  They are a bunch of tight ass terrorists.  Their version of Islam is intolerant and violent to the extreme.  If US forces understand this they can mount a successful counterinsurgency campaign. 

If NATO and the CIA continue to bomb things at random in Afghanistan and Pakistan they will fail.

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  The USA has no interest in owning Afghanistan the way the USSR tried to do.  We don't need any more warm water ports.  We have San Diego and Miami for heaven's sake.

Speaking of Miami

Rajah's picture

Send David Caruso over there

that'll scare 'em!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.