Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 1:23*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:55*pm, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 24, 11:11*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:17*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:06*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:14*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:07*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

guess the moron didn't read the article:

"Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees
without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under
the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.

You're confused. *Here's what your boy promised:

""He will reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S.
to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees."

which, of course, has nothing at all to do with the article, or what
bush said, or what the right wing said obama said

this is called 'goalpost moving'. he got his ass shredded in this
argument so now abandons it and tries something else

typical right wing idiot.

You evidently never even understood the original post. *Let me refresh
you:

"Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader."

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? *Now put down the Sterno,
back away, and sober up.-

IOW you righties said obama supported bush's policy

the article said exactly the opposite

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from
Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

"the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by
the Bush administration "

so under right wing logic that makes you correct.

I am correct. *Obama did not support it when Bush did it, and promised
to change the policy, but now he has flopped and adopted Bush's
policy. *He lied to you.

so you never did learn to read. bush said he didn't need congress's
approval. obama said he does and he already has it

that's what the article said. sorry you can't read


Your left wing logic has failed you. *But you are a good apologist for
BO... a lemming to the end.-

says the right wing limbaugh sock puppet

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 1:15*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:44:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

I am (I) who thinks most of these al qaeda *weasels should have been
interviewed in the door of a helicopter, then thrown out, so it is just
amusing to me.

Except most of them aren't al Qaeda. *Over 400 of the prisoners were
released without charges.

That can be said of virtually everyone we are killing in Afghanistan
right now but Obama is still saying "these are the people who caused
9/11". I heard it at least a dozen times last Sunday on the media
blitz.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Obama is GWB with a tan

IOW you don't know where afghanistan is or who we're fighting.

go back to dr. seuss. that's about your speed

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 2:30*pm, wf3h wrote:


I am correct. *Obama did not support it when Bush did it, and promised
to change the policy, but now he has flopped and adopted Bush's
policy. *He lied to you.

so you never did learn to read. bush said he didn't need congress's
approval. obama said he does

"concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress"
BO says he *doesn't* need it. Got it?

and he already has it

Because he's keeping something Bush got originally, you lefties howled
about it then, BO promised to get rid of it, but is now embracing it.
Obama lied, you spin, and the world turns.

You're so easy.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 3:02*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:30*pm, wf3h wrote:



I am correct. *Obama did not support it when Bush did it, and promised
to change the policy, but now he has flopped and adopted Bush's
policy. *He lied to you.

so you never did learn to read. bush said he didn't need congress's
approval. obama said he does

"concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress"
BO says he *doesn't* need it. *Got it?

uh...no.

he doesn't need SPECIFIC approval for detaining people

BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAS IT

WITHOUT it, he'd NEED TO GO AND GET IT

bush, OTOH, said he didn't need it

hope that clears it up for you.


and he already *has it

Because he's keeping something Bush got originally,

ROFLMAO!! bush said he didn't need it. that's what the article said

m'kay?

got it?

sheesh! a black hole emits more info than you do

you lefties howled
about it then, BO promised to get rid of it, but is now embracing it.
Obama lied, you spin, and the world turns.

You're so easy.

i know you righties love big govt with unlmited powers, but we lovers
of the constitution prefer a separation of powers...

like obama prefers, instead of bush with his imperial presidency and
unlimited powers.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 3:46*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 24, 1:05*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:14:28 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

What a difference a (D) makes. (sorry Dinah)

When it was an (R) congress and the president was (R) Gitmo was
blatantly unconstitutional. Now it is fine as long as congress agrees.

congressional oversight has always been an issue, as richard nixon
found out. *and it's SLIGHTLY more complicated than just having
'congress agree'. but that's a first step

If it is truly unconstitutional, congress can't approve it either.

which was not the topic of the article

You folks do have to get your story straight.

you just have to learn to read...and to stop lying. the topic was
whether or not obama continued bush's policies. he didn't.

so now you move the goalposts...

He continued the policies,

which is, of course, meaningless. what 'policies'? the difference is
that he recognizes separation of powers and limits on presidential
powers which the imperial president bush never did

just with a rubber stamp from the (D)
controlled congress.

ah. more goalpost moving. now you're admitting you're wrong in that
he DOES need congressional approval BUT you're saying it's a rubber
stamp congress

gee. why not move the goalposts out of the park completely

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 3:43*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:


Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Obama is GWB with a tan

IOW you don't know where afghanistan is or who we're fighting.

I know the difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan (where Bin
Laden really is)

and you seem to think afghanistan is a nation just like pakistan. IOW
you think all 'stans' are alike...


Even the senior members of the administration are starting to admit
Afghanistan is a nation building operation

ROFLMAO!! they're saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. no one is talking
nation building. they're talking predator drone attacks in pakistan,
building up the ANA and ANP, but nationbuilding? no such luck

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
Even the senior members of the administration are starting to admit
Afghanistan is a nation building operation

ROFLMAO!! they're saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. no one is talking
nation building. they're talking predator drone attacks in pakistan,
building up the ANA and ANP, but nationbuilding? no such luck


I think we should do some nationbuilding... right here in the US. It's about
time.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 3:10*pm, wf3h wrote:


i know you righties love big govt with unlmited powers, but we lovers
of the constitution prefer a separation of powers...

like obama prefers, instead of bush with his imperial presidency and
unlimited powers.

You mean like firing the CEO of a private company, appointing
unconstitutional "czars" for all kinds of crap, attempting to silence
critics by sending thugs to beat then up, asking citizens to rat out
people with different viewpoints... yeah, right.
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional

June 15, 2009Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar”
with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this
latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote
President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional.
President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab
centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional
oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the
pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money
(and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say
that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay
until the czar is pleased.

Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter,
Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack
Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had
one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high
as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen
czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous
government power, and answers only to the president.
--------------------------------------------------------
"big govt with unlimited powers"... indeed. You're such an idiot you
can't see what going on right in front of you.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:10:38 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

i know you righties love big govt with unlmited powers, but we lovers
of the constitution prefer a separation of powers...

The constitution says that is THREE branches of government, not Two

you don't know what separation of powers means. no kiddin'. a right
winger only knows the 2nd amendment...


A year ago this was being defined by the left as an abuse of the right
of habeas corpus and due process.

uh...no it wasn't. what WAS being defined as a power grab was bush's
imperial presidency...no limits...no checks...no accountability to
congress

and that's what the article says. i suggest you read it

Suddenly that is OK with you as long
as it is OK with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Bush would say he got the tacit approval from his congress in the
various war resolutions they passed

and bush said he didn't need it. that's the point.

and you? you just quit reading after the first 3 letter word in the
article


.. The reality for anyone who really
thinks this is a constitutional issue is that neither the congress nor
the president has that power. Due process requires the judiciary.

meaningless


You would have to amend article 1 section 9 of the constitution to
change that.

The flip side of this is others say Gitmo is not in the United States,
these are not US citizens, they are enemy combatants and the
constitution does not apply at all.
This is purely a military exercise and the president is commander in
chief of the military.

irrelevant. goalpost moving.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 4:31*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 3:10*pm, wf3h wrote:



i know you righties love big govt with unlmited powers, but we lovers
of the constitution prefer a separation of powers...

like obama prefers, instead of bush with his imperial presidency and
unlimited powers.

You mean like firing the CEO of a private company,

i guess you, like a typical right winger, think we should have just
given the rich $25B and said 'it's paid for by the taxpayers. screw
'em'


appointing
unconstitutional "czars" for all kinds of crap,

meaningless. has nothing to do with habeas corpus

*attempting to silence
critics by sending thugs to beat then up, asking citizens to rat out
people with different *viewpoints... yeah, right.


more racist ****** hatred from the far right. obama has zip to do
with this, but the far right, with their hatred of the commie kenyan
****** arab muslim president, make up lies.


------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional

June 15, 2009Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar”
with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this
latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote
President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional.
President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab
centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional
oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the
pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money

ah. receiving govt money

funny how you right wingers think the president should have unlimited
powers to arrest and detain, but you shudder with horror over the govt
trying to protect the money it's lent private companies

shows how ****ed up the right really is.

..
--------------------------------------------------------
"big govt with unlimited powers"... indeed. *You're such an idiot you
can't see what going on right in front of you.

says the guy who thinks only rich right wing presidents should have
unlimited powers