Subject: Obama/Bush on State
> Because if he taps fewer phones, and we
get hit by Bush's al-Qaeda friends, the GOP and talk radio
> and the Whore Times and the WaHoPo and the
cable Nazis and everyone else in the Bush media
> will claim we got hit because the Democrats
don't know how to fight terrorism.
I'm really disappointed in you Bart and I feel
you've let me and a lot of other readers down.
This has to be the lamest excuse I've heard yet
for president Obama's about-face on spying and so-called "state secrets"
During his campaign, candidate Obama said the
the Bush administration was abusing the state secrets argument, now that
he is president, Obama is not only claiming the
original Bush DOJ position, he is also claiming that lawsuits cannot proceed
unless the government willfully discloses any
information gathered under this illegal program in a public manner, an
that would get a first-year law student laughed
out of class. This principle simply does not exist and Obama's DOJ
the state secrets argument beyond the point of
As far as asking Obama about this, the question
was raised on Thursday, April 9th during a press conference,
when Robert Gibbs, official mouthpiece of the
administration was asked the following:
Q. Last Friday, the Justice Department
invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil
against the National Security Administration
regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice
Department argued that Americans have no right
to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance.
Does the President support the Justice Department's
positions in that case?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely. It's absolutely
does. Obviously, these are programs
that have been debated and discussed, but
the President does support that viewpoint.
The Obama administration has already answered
the question and it is clear he supports the Bush position 100% and even
goes further into previously unclaimed territory
by asserting that no damage has been done if the government keeps the
information gathered about individuals secret
and does not reveal it.
This is an outrage and for you to claim that Obama
has no choice due to the threat of terrorism
is nothing more than wishful thinking and self-delusion.
Bart, I've read your website for years and was
very encouraged by your stand against the excesses of the Bush regime,
but now that a Democrat, Obama is in the White
House, you seem to have lost any fervor for holding the executive branch
You are now using the same rationale that the
Republicans used in supporting the illegal activities of Bush and Co.
And that is very disappointing indeed.
Scott in Phoenix
Scott, you're as wrong as sex with as mule.
I'm not supporting Obama's turnaround/back-stabbing/power-grab/Bush-ish
I took a wild stab at mind-reading in an attempt to
explain what he might be thinking
and you're seeing that as some kind of betrayal?
It's the same with the pot issue.
Clinton and Obama both dislike the pot laws, but they refused to take
action, I suppose,
because it would give the churches and the right-wing and lazy-ass
and right now he doesn't need the headache.
How can my attempted stab-in-the-dark for an explanation offend anybody?
At worst, I'm wrong about Obama's motives.
Geez, have a little faith.
Back to Bartcop.com
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog