Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 5 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 2/8/09

You lost! Stop the hypocritical legal defenses and destroying the US government.

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   14 comments
Message winston smith
Every second they were in they lied and cheated and now they have moles continuing their evil policies.

Someone should adjust Cheney's medications and explain to him that not only is it bad form to accuse the opponent of being weak on defending the US, but no other regime has felt the urge to do so-not even "Tricky Dick" with his "domino theory" having Commies on our street corners, or the great fear monger, "Teflon Ronnie" who so insincerely fought the "Evil Empire". This GOP GWOT scam is as useless as Reagan's "War against drugs" which amounted to people just saying no to drugs and had no money allocated for it. Our allies the Europeans, who have larger Arabic population than we do, consider it to be a policing, intelligence gathering and relationship with Muslim countries building effort and eschew the label of war.

Why is it that the vile ex v.p.-president of vice, the impotent, dickless Cheney continues spewing venom against the current administration? Maybe this is the opening round in his criminal defense. Maybe he is trying to say that a president really does have "unitary executive" power and that the "everlasting war against terrorism" really is vital to our defense and that any crimes that big bro 43 committed can be excused because he had to perpetrate them to protect us if it is just repeated often enough.

The article "Bringing the Inauguration Closer to Constitutents" at

deals with torture and how big bro 43's crew of crooks have attempted to say the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution permitted his crew to commit crimes against humanity.

The article states "In former Justice Department attorney Jay Bybee's newly released Oct. 23, 2002, 47-page opinion, he stakes out broad war-making powers for Bush, claiming the President "possesses constitutional authority for ordering the use of force against Iraq to protect our national interests."

The vile GOP crew is out and now the Democrats will do the painful steps to restore our standing in the international as the article states "In one of the first acts of the 111th Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers proposed legislation to create a blue-ribbon panel of
outside experts to probe the "broad range" of policies pursued by the Bush administration "under claims of unreviewable war powers," including torture of detainees and warrantless wiretaps.
Conyers's proposal for a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties also signals that Congress will devote significant time this year to investigating the Bush administration's most controversial actions with an eye to rolling back its expansion of executive power....
While Conyers's plan falls short of the criminal probe that civil rights groups have sought, neither would it prevent a criminal investigation by Obama's Justice Department if the new administration moves in that direction, said two aides on Obama's transition team who spoke on condition of anonymity."

The article "Panetta Addresses Claims That Harsh Tactics Worked" at

click here

addresses what the new CIA might do as the article states "Appearing for a second day of questioning by members of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, Panetta was pressed by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) to carry out an inquiry on "whether those tactics yielded valuable information or misinformation."

We know the information that is developed as a result of torture is bogus but there is another problem with being unethical as the article continues "Levin also wanted to know whether the damage done by public knowledge of those tactics counterbalanced the intelligence gained. The senator, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said that some high-ranking U.S. military officers have asserted that what went on at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons became a "cause of U.S. combat deaths because they helped to recruit people to come to war to attack us."

When big bro 43's first Secretary of Defense started to diminish the expectations regarding how the military acted in GWOT he wrote an infamous "slog" memo in which he wondered if the US could kill as many terrorists as the very act of killing one terrorist emanated the creation of countless numbers of new jihadists. Related to this is another recruiting bonanza for bin laden the big bro 43 fell sucker to, that of creating huge hordes of jihadists by torturing detainees who offer up suspect lies to make the torture stop. Everything that "bubble boy" 43 was not only doomed for failure, but also was illegal and with a Democratic controlled Congress promising investigations of his crimes, we might soon see big bro 43's crew in the same penal system as the extremist Islamic jihadists. I wondered how that will work out for the ultimate figurehead W? Who will protect the fool? Maybe this era's "Tricky Dick", the dickless, feckless Cheney will be sharing the same prison cell and can protect W as he has in W's entire term. Maybe Cheney will offer up W for his own legal advantage. In any case Cheney can't keep his trap closed. Anyone who has ever watched "Law and Order" knows that people who are being investigated shouldn't be yammering for the media.

The article "Some From Bush White House Blast Obama, but Former President Stays Mum" at

click here

indicates that big bro 43 is following his lawyer's advice, but his crew isn't particularly the vile v.p. as the article states "Richard B. Cheney says President Obama's policies will make it easier for
terrorists to kill Americans."

During the 2004 presidential campaign Cheney made similar remarks. If it wasn't for a few votes in Ohio they might have proven to be detrimental to the GOP, but politics-particularly presidential campaigns in which the incumbent party has no positive planks of a platform to discuss-and therefore has to rely on the staple of GOP campaigns, negative campaigning, is a hard business.

The article continues ""It's certainly unbecoming, especially for a former vice president," Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, said in reference to the remarks by Cheney and others. "It reinforces the fact that there's a lot of bitterness about the low public standing of Bush and the administration as they left office, and the soaring standing of Barack Obama. A lot of these people are still caught up in these ideological battles and can't let go."

The GOP response is just misinformation as the article continues "But Brian Darling, the Senate relations director for the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the criticism "is part of democracy and the free exchange of ideas."

"President Obama has taken actions that are opposite of what the Bush
administration worked for over the last eight years," he said. "This is part of defending their legacy."

So Cheney believes that he is smarter than his cadre of lawyers and is going to attack Obama and imply that big bro 43's illegal actions were warranted by the authorization of military force or the unitary executive powers.

Worse than having these GOP thugs broadcasting vile attacks against Obama is the fact that there are GOP moles-former big bro 43 appointees, in Obama's government who are lying about the new administration's policies.

'The Rachel Maddow Show'for Monday, February 2 at

interviewed Scott Horton who discussed Obama's policies.

Maddow asked " So, my worry is that efforts are underway to falsely suggest that Obama is continuing the worst of Bush's terrorism policies. Am I right to worry?" to which Horton replied "You are right to worry. I mean, this has been going on for a while. I mean, remember-we had a flurry of this when John Brennan's name was floated to be director of the CIA. We again had unnamed and unidentified sources linked to the CIA saying that we were going to see continuity of policies, that we would all be surprised, we'd see more continuity than change in the new regime and Brennan was presented as symbolic of that, in fact."

Maddow continued "So, is the idea that Bush's policies were somehow necessary, that Obama would end up adopting them once they got into office and that would sort of retroactively clear up Bush's unpopularity because these policies would be seen as not just associated with unpopular him but also with popular Obama?" to which Horton replied "I think that is right. And, you know, the concern that seems to be in the background here on the part of some of these senior CIA officials and former CIA officials is over their scapegoating. Concern that when the abuses of the Bush years are shown to the sunlight and there's a search for someone to prosecute or hold accountable, that it's going to be line officers of the CIA rather than policymakers.
But I think that's really a misplaced concern. I don't think that's going to happen in the Obama administration."

Regarding Maddow's distinction between big bro 43's contemptible extraordinary rendition policy Horton stated "I think you cited the two major distinctions, the introduction of torture and the long-term detention of individuals outside of any accountability to law, no criminal charges, no arraignment, no courts. The old rendition program goes back, you know, in some cases, even to the Reagan administration.
But think of the case of Eichmann at the end of World War II, the Nazi war criminal who fled to Argentina, who was making a life for himself there when the Israelis realizing that they wouldn't be able to get Argentinean authorities to cooperate with them in extradition, simply went in, snatched him, and brought him back to put him on trial in Jerusalem. Well, that was a renditions case. And I think that points to why even human rights advocates feel there is a limited role for renditions still."

Maddow stated what we all worried about as the article continues "In the lame duck period, we heard about Bush staffers burrowing into jobs throughout the federal government. Do you think that means just tactically that we should expect long-term Bush legacy polishing stuff like this from unanimous sources inside the government?" to which Horton replied "Well, exactly right. I mean, I think we may see sabotage as well. But certainly, there are going to be efforts to portray what Obama is doing as continuity rather than change to try and undermine Obama's message."

"Expetive deleted" sabotage of the US government is another of big bro 43's entirely detrimental contributions to our country!
Rate It | View Ratings

Winston Smith Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Winston Smith is an ex-Social Worker. I worked in child welfare, and in medical settings and in homeless settings. In the later our facility was geared as a permanent address for people to apply for welfare. Once they received that we could send (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Bush planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Why did we all hate Palin?

Why is Obama protecting 43?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Bush, with criminal intent, planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

What happens to US credibility if Spain finds them guilty and we don't?

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend