Powered by TypePad

« A Boycott With Teeth (And The Munchies) | Main | We're Stimulated! »

February 11, 2009



Yes, there have been various heads exploding on the left-o-sphere over this. I actually think one of the reasons they are pushing the Porkulus so hard is to distract the soft-headed lefties who can only pay attention to one thing at a time from noticing how much of the Bush administration's legal policies WRT the war on terror they are actually keeping.

Mark O

Extraordinary rendition: safer than beer.


The NYT and I have a differennt take on the meaning of "incredibly"...In this case I'd say ,"NATURALLY,* the federal lawyer advanced the same expansive state-secrets argument that was pressed by Mr. Bush’s lawyers to get a trial court to dismiss the case without any evidence being presented. [/quote]
* Exhibiting a sense of mature reflection and responsibility unlike the owner of this failing rag.

Danube of Thought

This on the same day the Iraqi defense minister announces that he has been assured "by the new administration" that there will be no hasty withdrawal of US troops.

And the Deputy AG nominee says, as did Holder, that the president has the authority to hold unlawful combatants indefinitely without trial.

Plus: Guantanamo detainees held hostage, Day 23.


To be honest, I've been a little disappointed that some of the things Obama has done make him seem incompetent, and some of the things he has said made him seem hyper-partisan. I remain optimistic that he will change while he is in office, at least I hope he will.

Still I wouldn't call him a failure, just a disappointment really. As I said, I'm hopeful that someday he will stop being such a disappointment.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Having heard oral argument (linked by Howard Bashman yesterday), I can tell you the 9th circuit panel was as surprised as the NYT about the Justice Department's position. The presiding judge coyly asked in effect whether anything has taken place in the last six months that might have caused the Department to change its position. Answer: No your honor. Q: So the position of the new administration is unchanged" A: Yes. Q: Has the new AG reviewed this case? A: Yes -- I can represent to you that this is the position of the Department of Justice in the current administration. The judge: Very well. Proceed.

And he did -- taking precisely the same position as that evil Bush administration.

BTW, the JD attorney arguing, pretty clearly a career employee, has in the past handled all of the state secrets cases in the Ninth Circuit, including one in which SCOTUS reversed the Ninth to uphold the government's position.

The ACLU attorney was chagrined and clearly unhappy with those developments. Sorry ACLU and NYT. Maybe your position is just wrong,

Danube of Thought

"Maybe your position is just wrong."

And dangerously irresponsible.


That's interesting Jim. I love the coaching.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Me too, Jane.

It was interesting to me (and impressive) that the JD attorney was extraordinarily well-versed in the state secrets doctrine dating back to the civil war, and not only handled the panel's skeptical questions, but took the position that it wasn't even a close case. The panel had not even looked at the classified portion of the record. The JD lawyer basically told them when the did, they would see that this case merely presented a routine application of the doctrine. He did not seem like a Bush man, rather like a US Government man.


The ACLU attorney was chagrined and clearly unhappy with those developments. Sorry ACLU and NYT. Maybe your position is just wrong,

One wonders if they would have gotten so invested in this position had Obama been President all along. Or if some Dem politician* had acted like an adult on this topic while Bush was President.

*other than Joey Liebs


I'm hopeful that someday he will stop being such a disappointment.
I'd say "January 20, 2013", but there's the Carter precedent. He might still be a disappointment well past 2040.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet


You're right about that. I sometimes think so far as national security is concerned, the "liburals" want to return to the good old Articles of Confederation.


The JD lawyer is probably the same guy who has been lead on the case all along. I just wonder when Obama is going to start replacing these federal attorneys with his own hand picked cadre. Then again, secrecy rules are always first on the list in a police state.

Mark Turner


I think the cold shower of "disappointment" has only just begun for many of the people that voted for Obama.


So true, matt, and as we all know, the Bush Administration was too honest to use these powers illegitimately and the Obama Administration is too crooked not to use them so.

Mark Turner

Obama is behaving similarly to Bill Clinton in his first 2 years. Voter disaffection and backlash is already starting...Obama is taking a hard left turn when most voters who supported him were looking for a smoother, more gentle lane change left.


Still I wouldn't call him a failure, just a disappointment really. As I said, I'm hopeful that someday he will stop being such a disappointment.

Hope was the currency of the campaign. But now that Obama is in office, facts in evidence would be more useful. Out of curiosity, do you see anything about the administration that isn't disappointing?

Fresh Air

They got the failure part right, it's the reason why that the Slimes editors missed.


Yes, PD, Bob Gates.


...do you see anything about the administration that isn't disappointing?

Two things. I enjoyed the low door height on Marine One and of course the way the windows on the White House are not doors.

JM Hanes

Hi MikeS!

LOL. It's been awhile. I've always enjoyed your sense of humor, and hope all goes well.

Danube of Thought

I think MayBee has got it right. All of this hysterical crap about domestic spying, torture, and the rest was made a cause celebre for the purpose of attacking George Bush. Now that he's gone, a far more sober approach is called for. If Obama and Holder take even a peek at the classified stuff--and maybe they already have--they'll clear their throats and hope someone changes the subject. Of course, the NY Times never will give it up, but their days are numbered anyway.

Terry Gain

"Q: Has the new AG reviewed this case?"

My what a revealing question from the Bench. It shows disrespect and bias.


I'll bet Obama's favorite part of "Men in Black" is that "memory eraser" gun. Whoa, with something like that, His Majesty can just point, squeeze, and *poof* eliminate unpleasant questions, and howls of outrage, from erstwhile supporters. "End torture? *Poof!* Now WHEN did I ever promise that?"

Shucks, I wouldn't be surprised if His Majesty slipped in a billion bucks in the stimulus bill for research into making memory erasers. Maybe he called it the "Presidential Memory Alteration Research Project."


Yes, Terry, though I was highly amused by the judge's coaching, it was also highly disturbing.


But still, I'm glad she elicited the explicit response. That's got to be a head clearer for some moderates.


Barrack Hussein Obama is not a "Miserable Failure",he is an exceptionally good failure.The depths of his talent for failure are as yet unplumbed. Give the man a chance,give him the time to fail on the epic scale the only he can achieve,but wear your Kevlar and Lead underwear.


"Voters have good reason to feel betrayed if they took Mr. Obama seriously on the campaign trail when he criticized the Bush administration’s tactic of stretching the state-secrets privilege to get lawsuits tossed out of court."



Yep, Bush Lite. Too bad he's incapable of executing. Biden would be an improvement, I'm positive.

The comments to this entry are closed.