EFF: Obama DOJ worse than Bush's

So there you have it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says President Obama's DOJ is even worse than President Bush's. What really rubs the EFF lawyers the wrong way?

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Well, I'm not surprised. President Obama and his administration has shown blatant disrespect for the Constitution and other principles of our Republic.

Obama cannot charm his way to NATO hearts

Realizing that he was wrong about our victory in Iraq, President Obama has sought to make his military mark in Afghanistan with the help of NATO allies. Unfortunately, his efforts fall short:

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.

Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.
...
Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada and Denmark said that they were considering their positions. After a meeting with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, Mr Obama tried to apply further moral pressure. “I am sure that Germany, as one of the most important leaders in Europe, will be stepping up to the plate and helping us to get the job done.”

This isn't being widely reported by the mainstream media as part of the President's hyped European G-20 tour. Why? Because it makes Obama look bad. But why aren't our European allies stepping up to the plate on Afghanistan? When Poland, Canada, and Denmark, typically our staunchest allies, still have to "think about it," then there's something very wrong.

Has the threat of the Taliban and its terror-support network diminished? Hardly. In fact, intelligence and military analysts have documented a growing Taliban.

Is the world just too caught up with the global economic recession? Maybe so, but why didn't these allies offer a few troops even as a gesture of support in the Afghan engagement?

The heart of the problem is that these world leaders see right through President Obama. They see that he was wrong about Iraq, so what makes them to be confident about his strategy in Afghanistan? They know that the President lacks foreign policy experience (they still remember his first European tour as a presidential candidate) and is trying to find a footing in that area. I think they believe that Obama is just politicking this to strengthen his reputation at home and abroad.

NATO's response would certainly have been different if it were President Bush.

Video of Biden's daughter doing cocaine?

There is trouble in the domestic front -- V.P. Joe Biden's family and by extension, the White House family. Somebody has video of Ashley Biden, or somebody who resembles her, at a party enjoying a few lines of cocaine.

If the video is truly evidence of Ashley's drug use, then we can expect the standard "children are off limits" spin from the W.H. and the Second Family. I predict the mainstream media burying this story. We're likely going to see another fine example of media double standard: Remember how the media portrayed the Bush twins' college drinking? Or how about the pregnancy of Gov. Palin's daughter? The media had field days with those stories -- nothing was off limits then.

It is unfortunate that the children of politicians also come under the spotlight, but it is even more unfortunate that the mainstream media would tirelessly pursue certain stories to advance their (and the liberal pols they support) agenda than some others.

How the Marines view W. and O.

This video clip says a lot.

Our enemies continue terrorism even as Obama ends War on Terror

Even if the Obama administration doesn't agree with Bush's War on Terror, we know what the terrorists think: starting fires in Australia and beheading a Polish geologist.

Do you feel safe?

Here we go again: prosecute Bush for allowing torture

For some reason liberals cannot live with themselves knowing that they are safe because their President authorized waterboarding (claimed to be a torture method) to get valuable information out of terrorists in preventing attacks. Is it because that president is Bush? Or because they feel guilty about somebody being tortured for them to enjoy normal life?

Paul Campos writes in Rocky Mountain News a confusing piece, touting his support and activism for the Obama campaign, yet admitting:

Still, the whole business has left me rather depressed, because, in the end, I don't really believe in Barack Obama. For one thing, I don't believe in "change" - an empty concept if there ever was one.

Talk about a man of no principle, treating a ballot as if it were just a piece of scrap paper.

Then Campos makes a prediction on which route President Obama would take with regards to Bush's authorization to use torture:

So the Obama administration is faced with a difficult moral choice: It can enforce the law, or it can do the politically expedient thing and ignore the nation's constitutionally binding treaty obligations when those obligations require something as disturbing as prosecuting American war criminals.

Every indication is that Obama will choose the latter course.

He's probably right because ever since the beginning of Obama's political life, he has chosen the path of political expediency. He's in the White House because he's a great politician.

But let's go back to the subject of torture. I've always thought a good test would be to put yourself in such a situation:

Your wife (or loved one) is abducted, and her location and well-being is unknown. Authorities have captured a man who could have information leading to save your wife. The criminal is being a hard-ass and not talking. You could pull his fingernails and waterboard him for a chance to attain information, or you can have your lawyer talk to his lawyer for days and weeks. Time is running out.

Mr. Campos, what would you do?

F**K GEORGE banner disgusts vets at inaugural ball concert

What. The. Hell. Whether or not the inappropriate and obscene banner is aimed at outgoing President Bush, this is still a tasteless stunt pulled by the George Clinton band. They ought to be ashamed of themselves and never be invited back to state events in the future!

An inauguration, tainted

Everything seemed fine and happy until I noticed this: some people booed Bush when he arrived at the inauguration dais.

These people have absolutely no class. I know Obama would be ashamed to even have such classless supporters.

Already giving Obama too much credit

In less than 24 hours, America will have her 44th president in a ceremony marking another peaceful transition of power of a great nation. Out with the Bush eight years. In with the Obama optimistic four years. Like Courtney E. Martin of The American Prospect, I too envision many participating or watching the inauguration will shed tears of joy and let out cheers of encouragement. Martin writes:

While we must resist the temptation to romanticize this moment into ridiculousness, it is legitimately inspiring.
...
It is the beginning of a more engaged, more hopeful citizenry. With leaders that treat us as more than a 300-million-person focus group, we can effectively hold those leaders accountable. We are no longer a manipulated mass, a nation of children embarrassed by our father's simple-mindedness and impulsive rage. We have stepped into our own power through this election process, grown wiser and more informed than any electorate in decades. Like the wide-eyed children who have found a new hero, we will inevitably be disillusioned, but at least we will be passionate. Indifference and apathy have been replaced with investment and the related risks. I'd much rather live in a country in danger of disappointment than in a nation of indifference.

Personally, I think each inauguration is inspiring. Not just from the ceremonial grandeur or the solemnness of it all. Not just from knowing that the person to become president won in the battle of campaigns. Not just from seeing the profound happiness on the family's faces. It's always a great moment, not just for the new president but also America and her children.

I do appreciate Martin's poetic optimism. However, it seems to come at President Bush's -- the previous administration's -- expense. That's not what the inauguration is about. We do look forward to a different and hopefully, a better, future, but that doesn't mean the past was dark and ill-fated. Citizens will hold accountable Bush as much as Obama. President Bush did not manipulate us. Neither is he simple-minded or impulsive. By all accounts, he's a decent man and tried leader of eight years. At least have the decency to acknowledge that, even if it's not the popular thing to do.

After all, President Bush never cared to be popular. He cared mostly to do the right thing.

Al Qaeda faces Black Death?

Apparently the plague has struck some al Qaeda terrorists in Algeria, North Africa. Let's hope it'll spread among the caves these terrorists hide and train in. Left-wing nuts are probably going to start some conspiracy theory about Bush authorizing CIA in the use of biological warfare against al Qaeda.

Bush was not wrong, writers are just not right

President Bush's farewell address didn't go well with many liberals. What else is new, eh?

Arianna Huffington unloads:

He was wrong about Iraq and Saddam and WMD. He was wrong to take his eye off the ball on Afghanistan. He was wrong about tax cuts being the answer to our economic woes. He was wrong about Wall Street being able to regulate itself. He was wrong about Katrina. He was wrong about torture. He was wrong about extraordinary rendition. He was wrong about warrantless wiretapping. He was wrong about Gitmo. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Calm down, Huffy! The only two things I may even agree with are Afghanistan and Katrina. However, he did own up to them and corrected the wrongs fairly quickly. Everything else -- Iraq, Saddam, WMD, torture, rendition, wiretapping, Gitmo -- well, America is kept safe since 9/11. I have to thank the President for that.

Gerard Baker, calling Bush "the epitome of ineptitude," among many other things:

Around the world the Bush name is synonymous with arrogance, ignorance, reckless insouciance, torture, violence and ineptitude. And those would be from America's friends. He leaves office with his country facing the worst economic crisis since (take your pick) Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover left town, two of his predecessors now firmly ensconced in the presidential Hall of Infamy.

Lots of SAT words there. Sure, blame the economy on him, too! Why didn't you write something when Bush's economic policies were making you tons of money in real estate and stocks? Please seek professional help for your Severe BDS...

And the President just can't catch a break, not even on the home front. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), also the Judiciary Committee chairman, wants to investigate and probe the Bush administration:

First, Congress should continue to pursue its document requests and subpoenas that were stonewalled under President Bush. Doing so will make clear that no executive can forever hide its misdeeds from the public.

Second, Congress should create an independent blue-ribbon panel or similar body to investigate a host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush administration, including its detention, interrogation and surveillance programs. Only by chronicling and confronting the past in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion can we reclaim our moral authority and establish a credible path forward to meet the complex challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world.

Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.

I'm sure all in the name of civil liberty and accountability. Looks more like crucifying an outgoing president and his inner circle when Rep. Conyers enjoys the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House, and an incoming Democratic president. How about an investigation into Conyers' babysitter? Good grief. And this guy's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

But of course, it's all about Bush and not anyone else...

No BDS relief in sight even as Bush nears end of term

You just can't win with these BDS sufferers.

When Bush got elected and re-elected, liberals from near and far came out on the offense to label him as a dumb cowboy-wannabe from Texas who entered the White House thanks to his daddy and also managed to steal the 2004 election.

Now Bush is about to leave Washington and the liberal media still won't let him go in peace.

Journalism maven Helen Thomas writes about more "bizarre Bushisms":

On the Middle East crisis, his double standard was in full display.

Bush said he remained an opponent of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which has been invaded by Israel. He found only the firing of rockets by Hamas unacceptable, but expressed no sympathy for the Palestinians who are suffering heavy Israeli bombardment with American-supplied weapons.

Bush told the news conference: "Israel has a right to defend itself." He did not say the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. He also said the Gazans have to stop smuggling arms. But he said nothing about the tons of arms we have supplied Israel.

As for the global economic meltdown, the president admitted he had to abandon his free-market principles and approve of massive government intervention in the economy. He said this switcheroo was required in order to save the free market system. The logic evoked the Vietnam era when we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

Come on, Helen. Of course the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves, but the fact remains that Hamas provoked Israel by lobbing rockets across the border, striking fear and killing innocent Jews in the border towns. Also, sending bomb-strapped crazies into crowded Israeli markets doesn't sound like a defensive maneuver to me, either. Do you condone the horrible terrorist acts of Hamas?

And about the economy, I'm sure if Bush had stuck to free market principles and let capitalism work its way slowly and painfully into recovery, Thomas and her liberals critics would attack that "Bushism" with no end in sight. Seriously, it's a no-win situation for President Bush. Liberals will always have something to pick on.

Don't even bring up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush's decisiveness and resolve saved thousands more lives around the world. Thomas ought to read the article from The Telegraph's Andrew Robert.

That should provide enough answers to Michael J.W. Stickings' questions about Cheney:

I'm all for liberation, too, but are the people of Iraq truly free? Is there really a vibrant democracy there? And in Afghanistan, what of the ongoing war and instability there? It's not enough just to believe in your own high-falutin' rhetoric of freedom and democracy. It's not enough just to say that there have been such accomplishments, such historic progress. There's the not-so-little matter of the facts on the ground to consider, and the facts don't really back him up, do they? And what Cheney does not consider is not just those facts but that his own policies -- or, rather, Bush's -- have hindered progress in both Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as elsewhere, including in Iran, in North Korea, and with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Even granting him that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do -- which, in retrospect, I'm not about to do -- what about what came after the invasion? So too in Afghanistan. What about what came after the overthrow of the Taliban, specifically the immediate turn to Iraq and the failure to go after al Qaeda with full determination? And then, what about the gross mismanagement of the war in Iraq, and how Iraq turned into a cesspool of terrorism and sectarianism?

So give it a rest. Iraq is much, much better without the psychotic tyrant Saddam Hussein. Absorb that fact. Learn to live with it. Bush and Cheney did the right thing.

Imagine what took place in Obama's meetings with columnists

Obama had dinner with several prominent conservative columnists a few days ago, and followed up with a meeting with the liberals (of course he had to). Nobody's leaking details of these events, honoring the off-the-record agreement. Larry Kudlow shares some opinion of PEBO. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic isn't talking. No juicy stuff (heck, Kudlow can't even remember what food was served)!

My guess is that during the dinner with the "crazy" conservatives, the conversations were about the economy, Washington war stories, and lots of exchanged pleasantries. Congratulations. How's the family? Thank you. What delicious food! Here's a toast to our new President...

And what of the meeting with liberals? I bet they complained about not having dinner -- not even refreshments! Are we not as important as the right-wing nuts?! And after a brief exchange of pleasantries, they probably treated the meeting like a BDS support group, whining and moaning about Bush's stupidity and Cheney's dishonesty, and Palin's family. These liberal columnists probably hinted to PEBO that it was their words and leftist colleagues in the media that helped him to the White House. Take good care of us. Don't let us down. We can't believe you invited Rick Warren...

Best of luck to PEBO. As Kudlow pointed out, there's a lot of things to deal with already...

Obama silence on Gaza war irks many

Oh yes, the silence is deafening. President-elect Obama has remained muted in light of the recent conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. Also not a word from his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. And same with Joe Biden, his V.P. with mountains of foreign policies experience.

It's starting to make many Obama supporters uncomfortable, like Simon Tisdall of The Guardian, even though he's hit the nail on the head:

Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.

Exactly. Obama the politician at his best. He knows far too well that Israel is doing the right thing, but he's scared to piss off the pro-Palestinian/Hamas liberals (I'm betting the majority of them voted for Obama/Biden). He doesn't even have the guts to follow President Bush in voicing support of Israel, one of America's most staunch allies.

Isreal enters Gaza as savior, not invader

The international public opinion is once again condemning Israel's ground invasion into Gaza to root out Hamas and its rocket-lobbing terrorists. President Bush has recognized Hamas' provocation and supports Israel's right to self defense. Europe is divided, with France taking the lead in criticizing Israel.

Hamas' disregard for lives of innocent civilians, on both sides of the border, is again exposed. These terrorists fire rockets into Israeli townships, not military targets. Hamas members store weapons in mosques and people's homes and require people to stay there as human shields. The group encourages mothers to send their sons (and daughters) to be trained as suicide bombers. Its charter calls for the elimination of Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, tries its best in this bloody conflict to comply with humane and international laws. Its air force warns residents of air strikes. If a jet knows Hamas employs human shields, it will abort the missile firing. The IDF sends text messages to Gaza residents warning of imminent ground offensive, at the cost of the element of surprise and thus sacrificing more of its own soldiers.

I cannot help but wonder how many Palestinians actually wish for Israel to overpower Hamas and destroy it. Life in Gaza has been made miserable by this terrorist gang. How does anyone get away with using women and children as human shields? Unfortunately, they cannot voice their opposition to this nonsensical violence or risk death.

We all want peace. But history has taught us that peace often arrives after overwhelming power to destroy the enemy.

Moving inauguration day because of BDS

Chris Smith of The New Republic just can't wait any longer for President-elect Obama to become the real president. He's in favor of moving the inauguration to January 1, to welcome the new year with a bang. Well, mostly because he can't stand President Bush:

...Bush clearly doesn't want to hang around any longer, and thousands more jobs will disappear while he keeps the Oval Office warm for the first three weeks of January...

Honestly, I don't think having Obama in the White House on the first day of the year would make any difference in our current economic and global affairs. I know Obama supporters see him as The Messiah, as Mr. Fix-It-All, but he's really just a young liberal politician from Chicago.

Bush and Cheney's secret missions

Amen, and thank you, Mr. President:

"People say, 'Why would you do that?'" the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. "And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be - to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish."

Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching - balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin - that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support.

"I lean on the Almighty and Laura," Mr. Bush said in the interview. "She has been very reassuring, very calming."

Latest auto bailout proves TARP is slush fund

President Bush, soon to leave office amid lowest approval ratings, seems to be unconcerned about leaving a bad taste in taxpayers' mouths and is ignoring signals sent from his party members in Congress. Why else would he approve a $17 billion rescue package for G.M. and Chrysler when the Senate killed its version of bailout? Has he lost faith in free market capitalism? And notice that Ford isn't among the list of beggars. Maybe G.M. and Chrysler ought to learn a few things from this competitor. The fact that Ford is doing just fine without government money proves that there is a glimmer of hope for the auto industry, even if it means America is left with just one car company.

The auto bailout will come out of the TARP fund originally set up to relieve "financial institutions." Hans Bader of OpenMarket.org gives us a good idea of the statute:

...The bailout statute defines “financial institutions” eligible for the bailout as ”any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company.” Never mind that Congress listed as examples of ”financial institutions” only entities that were banks, insurance companies, or financial institutions, not automakers.

Using this money to save a car company is clearly not the intent of this statute. What is Bush thinking? If he is interpreting the bailout bill to include any institution, then TARP is essentially a slush fund for the White House. That would make it unconstitutional. But if the bill is honored as-is, then the auto bailout is illegal.

Would there be lawsuits coming forth about this? Maybe that is what kept Ford away from this package.

And what will Obama's incoming administration do? Billions of dollars in spending money for the White House. I'm sure the lobbyists are already buzzing around for a piece of that diminishing pie.

Bush blinks first in auto bailout

In the high stakes game of "Who blinks first?" it looks like President Bush lost to the UAW. The biggest losers are taxpayers, naturally.

The White House will authorize a $17.4 billion bailout for G.M. and Chrysler LLC which should last them through February 2009. If the automakers cannot show they're worth saving by March 31, 2009, the loans will be called and all funds to be returned.

Zaidi becoming poster boy of BDS sufferers

The crazy BDS left is loving the story of Zaidi, the shoe-hurler who missed President Bush during a press conference, but quickly becoming the anti-American celebrity at home and abroad. Look at how worked up "Kathy" is from Comments from Left Field:

I did not feel one scrap of sympathy for Bush — although I will admit I felt grudging admiration for his poise and quick reflexes in the moment. But any sympathy or respect I might have felt for Bush vanished with “So?” and “It was amusing.” It was amusing? F*** you, you bastard. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of children who will never see their parents again, wives who will never see their husbands, families who are living in refugee camps in Syria and Jordan, are amusing? And don’t tell me Bush didn’t mean that, because al-Zaidi said it, as clear as crystal.

By the way, I had to censor the expletive because this is a G-rated blog. Kathy sympathizes with those Iraqis who suffered because of the war and clearly blames the president. She's living up to the compassionate liberal label. But her worldview proves she's ignorant and irrational. I'd hate to break it to you, Ms. Kathy, but even before the first Marine stepped foot on Iraqi soil, there were already hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of orphans, widows, and refugees from Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

She's definitely out in the left field. Way out.