An Extension of Power
Presidential Poison is the title of an editorial in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal. It is a blistering, scathing indictment of Obama for opening the door to prosecution of former attorneys for the Bush administration.
Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret…
…at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.
The conflicting messages since Sunday from Barack Obama and Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs have garnered such labels as reversal, muddied and creating confusion. On Thursday, Gibbs said the White House doesn’t support creating an independent panel; however, he also “noted that it is up to Congress — not the White House — to decide whether to pass legislation creating a commission.”
Now is this White House off message? undecided? waivering? In my opinion, no.
Did Rahm Emmanuel, as Chief of Staff to Obama not confer with him before giving George Stephanopolous an exclusive interview Sunday on “This Week” and stating, “…Obama will not pursue the prosecution of Bush-era officials who devised torture policy against detainees”? Did Obama wake up Monday morning and suddenly decide to contradict Emmanuel? Was Gibbs bewildered when he said that Obama thinks the memos, “provide a moment of reflection, not of retribution”?
I believe Obama is like a ship beating into the wind. The conflicting messages are simply tacking to port and tacking to starboard in order to move forward. I don’t think judgments about chaotic messages or disorder in his appointments to high level posts bother him. Some things are orchestrated and some are unimportant. Logical and cohesive statements and organized government are unimportant except as they further his purpose. The things that I’m aware of that have angered him were criticisms of his person and fury regarding the Tea Parties. The first is beyond criticism and the Tea Parties are the gathering headwind that’s beginning to blow against him.
So don’t look merely at the words of different officials or stay focused on whether or not their words are contradictory–look at the effect of the words–look at the ripples and waves and the forward movement. Obama is committed to an extension of power to accomplish his objectives; this week he chose to use the conflict over memos and law.
_____
UPDATE: Important! Read the lists of Alinsky’s Rules!
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (HT: Moe Lane for the link)
Alinsky’s Rules of the Ethics of Means and Ends
Biography and related articles on Saul Alinsky at Discover the Networks.
More from The American Thinker, including the link below to Front Page Magazine.
Remember that Hillary Clinton wrote her Wellesley College senior thesis, “There is only the Fight” on Saul Alinsky. The link at the article to her thesis appears to be dead, however, a search will still find it online. I do not know anything about the site hosting it and have not provided a direct link.
_____
UPDATE II: Cheney continues to fire broadsides at Obama, making two holes in the sails!
Cheney formally requests release of two CIA memos on detainees
_____
UPDATE III: Andy McCarthy surveys the battle scene and reports on damage:
Obama’s Interrogation Mess: He made it, and now he’ll have to bear the consequences. (HT: Judy)
“The president is reeling because he sees his legislative agenda going up in smoke.”
_____
UPDATE IV: Reading from my kind of radical: John Adams to H. Niles, February 13, 1818, in which he says:
[1]
The “One” is not as omnipotent as he believes. His legions on the left commanded by Soros are moving him to make war on America…..
[2]
INC
Maybe they are playing good cop and bad cop. Kinda like Cantor?!
[3]
is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended.
And thank God for that. Enough with this bipartisan baloney. Time to draw distictions between the two side instead of this constant blurring to the point that most voters see no differences between the two.
[4]
excellent post, INC. Very insightful!
I love a good analogy…and the “tacking” one is a GREAT analogy!
The movements this way and that way are not changes of course…merely tacking to good wind (of ill wind, in this case). And his progress is steady…alarmingly so.
The line from the WSJ article that is most chilling is this:
“…at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements”
America essentially INVENTED the concept of “peaceful transition of power”. A few nations employed it occaisionally before us, but we have had a tradition going all the way back to 1797 (end of Washington’s 2nd term) of our Presidents NOT doing what Obama is doing now.
And what of the NEXT President (assuming there IS one)? Should Palin prosecute Obama for HIS crimes??
[5]
Criminalizing policy differences will destroy the country
Absolutely destroy it
I’m sure there are CIA agents right now who are telling themselves, “Why risk it? To hell with it, I’ll just be hung out to dry anyway. They want civil rights for terrorists? Let them live with the consequences.”
[6]
chekote, yes, you’re following my thinking. It’s a similar game, only I believe the sowing of confusion is more complex and has a more nefarious purpose.
Boehner and Cantor are working the good cop/bad cop, IMO, and Cantor is playing two audiences before the camera and on his Whip page.
[7]
Justrand, yes, the peaceful transfer of power has always been an important part of our history.
That WSJ piece is the sharpest and angriest thing I’ve read in criticism of a Obama–maybe any president.
[8]
MFG, yes, I agree. Go back and read the blog post that coldwarrior put up about this. I linked to it in the Sites To Be Seen. He was in the CIA.
Justrand, Should Palin prosecute Obama for HIS crimes??
I saw a satire on this. Let me see if I can find it.
[9]
I say let the show trials begin. Let the American people see what the previous administation did to keep us safe. Somebody posted here that maybe the Bush administration should have released the memos. You are darn right. If the Bush administration had been more forceful in the defense of its actions. They should have NEVER allowed this boloney about American values being violated. How is putting a BUG in someone’s cell and American values. We have allowed the opposition to constantly redefine values and rights and that is why we are in the mess we find ourselves today.
[10]
Here it is–it’s satire not just for amusement, but to make a point:
President Palin’s Quandary: To Prosecute Or Not
[11]
This is the briar patch that the GOP would love to be thrown into.
I wonder if the Dems will be stupid enough to do it? Nancy Pelosi certainly, so one can always hope.
I agree with Chekote about bipartisanship. The Founders would have laughed at such a concept. Political combat was about as partisan as it gets back then, and they saw that as healthy. The more partisanship, the less government does, and most likely it will only do the necessary things.
[12]
INC, you are a spectacular writer.
[13]
Let the record show that I was the first to call for INC to become a contributor.
[14]
chekote, another difference I see between Boehner & Cantor and the WH is that B & C may give the appearance of conflict, but if you look carefully at their words it’s not there. The WH issues statements that are flat out contradictory. They don’t care about the criticisms, because that doesn’t matter–they’re like flies they simply swat off. In fact, I think they’re delighted in sowing confusion and uproar. This is the Left we’re talking about.
[15]
Thanks, Judy, that means a lot coming from you!
[16]
Isn’t it ironic that the poster doing the loudest cheers for an end to Washington bi-partisanship is the same one constantly pestering the rest of that we should either silence or cut loose those politically aligned segments who possess values different from her own? I now understand that the references to “we” in her posts are acknowledgements of her own duality.
[17]
diva alert!
[18]
Judy
What don’t you leave the accounting/legal profession and go into psychology? You obviously enjoy ananlyzing people more than crunching numbers. I want to you be happy Judy. Really. I do.
[19]
RED ALERT
[20]
Che — once again — it’s all about you? Can you at least attempt to give up the me, me, me, me, me, me, me for one thread? You even make it about you with regards to my happiness. sheeesh….
[21]
INC is the most talented of all of our contributors
[22]
Show trials will destroy the country forever
This wasn’t even done after The Yankee War of Coercion Against The Peaceful Inhabitants Of The South
Lincoln and Grant realized prosecuting former Confederates would have utterly destroyed the country
[23]
Thank you, MFG!
We have an obscure little history book (we collect those kind of things!) that includes a discussion of the aftermath of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis, by Herman S. Frey. In it he writes:
Not to derail
my own thread into a discussion of slavery, the Civil War or secession–I just wanted to throw in this bit of information!
Those were different times and honor and decorum have short shrift today.
[24]
Expanding on INC’s excellent post.
There is an interesting comment over at NRO blog row by Peter Kirsanow on the Criminalizing Policy Differences —the Galactic Double Standard
He presents the bewildering juxtaposition of the Democrat and moonbat partisan’s firestorm over prosecuting a policy decision by the Bush administration for enhanced interrogation techniques that did not result in the loss of one American life (or one life for that matter)
with the Republican and sane Americans own forbearance from prosecuting Jamie Gorelick, et al who crafted the famous pre- 9/11 “Wall”, “the Clinton-era policy that separated criminal investigations from intelligence operations, thereby impeding counter-terrorism investigations.”
If hindsight second guessing is to be applied in determining whether the information that stopped additional terrorist attacks and therefore saved lives could have been obtained with other “less-enhanced” techniques, then shouldn’t we also apply hindsight to questioning whether giving intelligence officers access to the 20th hijacker Moussaoui’s computer may have prevented 9/11 from happening at all.
“The Wall was kept in place by government officials who were on notice that terrorists planned to kill Americans. It was kept in place even after terrorists had succeeded — pre 9/11 — in killing Americans. Maintenance of the policy was reckless and inexcusable — some might even argue that it was criminal.”
Mr. Kirsanow asks: “Will the partisans who demand the prosecution of those who kept America safe also demand the prosecution of those who endangered America?”
He isn’t holding his breath and neither am I.
But I wonder, if we could prosecute Gorelick for her creation of the Wall how large of a dent would her legal defense put in her $26 million dollar salary from Fannie Mae?
[25]
INC,
Lincoln for similar reasons never did bring before the SCOTUS of the time whether secession was legal. The court was a southern majority. Read pieces of the period and the war was called The War of Southern Aggression for a reason.
[26]
Thanks for bringing that out, Judy. I put a link into your comment to take everyone to the specific post. My husband angrily brought out the same point about the double standard this morning.
But I wonder, if we could prosecute Gorelick for her creation of the Wall how large of a dent would her legal defense put in her $26 million dollar salary from Fannie Mae?
!!!!!!!!!
[27]
Dr. Dog, The court was a southern majority. That’s something I didn’t know. Thanks.
[28]
Very good research, INC
An interesting side note: Johnson wanted to prosecute Lee and Davis for treason but it was Ulysses Grant who refused, threatening to resign his commission if they were prosecuted
[29]
Interesting!
[30]
ULYSSES S. GRANT BY LOUIS A. COOLIDGE
Grant was not content with written words. He
hurried to the White House, where for once he found
his tongue in controversy. ” A general commanding
troops,” he said, “has certain responsibilities and
duties and power which are supreme. … I have
made certain terms with Lee, the best and only
terms. If I had told him and his army that their
liberty would be invaded, that they would be open
to arrest, trial, and execution for treason, Lee would
have never surrendered, and we should have lost
many lives in destroying them. … I will resign the
command of the army rather than execute any order
directing me to arrest Lee or any of his commanders
so long as they obey the laws.”
That was a contingency which Johnson dared not
face. He could not hope to put his influence to the
test against the all-pervading popularity of Grant.
The indictments were withdrawn, though Johnson
still denied to Lee his amnesty.
[31]
I say let the show trials begin.
[32]
there’s a part of me that would welcome the show trials…but then again, considering that the media will slant and distort the coverage I am wary as well.
The Duelfer report is a perfect example. The ACTUAL report supported the invasion of Iraq, since it clearly showed that Saddam’s aim was to be able to quickly reconstitute his WMD…and he had retained the expertise and means to do so! The press? They trumpeted the report’s conclusion that he didn’t have them at the moment we invaded. And the press NEVER did report on the actual conclusion: that Saddam was a MASSIVE threat!
[33]
No offense but right wing blogs are becoming Groud Hog Day. Everyday: the MSM is biased. Everyday: Obama is a Marxist. Everyday; Obama is applying the Alinsky rules for radicals. Everyday: same soup. We all know this. The question is: HOW DO WE FIGHT IT?
[34]
Justrand
That is why you need somebody who can communicate effectively. That is why you need the old, tired talking points. Instead of worrying about the MSM, somebody needs to step up and call the Dems and the American people weasils. After 9/11, We ALL demanded that the government do whatever it took to prevent another terrorist attack. We DIDN’T give a damn about the Geneva convention. We DIDN’T give a damn about what the world thought.
If instead of Bush we had somebody who could actually talk, when this crap about torture first started it could have been nipped in the bud. Go on prime time and remind the American people how scared they felt on 9/11. Remind them that we ALL wanted to prevent another attack. Remind them that we are dealing with the filth of humanity (terrorists) and that you can’t stop cleaning up the world just because you might get a stain on your pants in the process.
[35]
What did we get with Bush? An inarticulate, boob going around repeating “Freedom for the Iraqis”, “Freedom”, “Freedom” while the Iraqis were killing each other. NEVER AGAIN!
[36]
Sorry, I meant you DON’T need the old talking points. I am in between meetings.
[37]
Amen, Chekote
The inability of W to speak was a catastrophic disaster for the Republican Party and for the country
[38]
chekote, get a grip dear… has it been that long since a DEM had to suffer the slings and arrows that comes with the office of the president or are the Obama faithful just more whiney?
inquiring minds want to know when the Obama faithful are going to man up and stop with the sniffling and pouting.
coo…
[39]
chekote, I spent a long time the other night just trying to convince you of what Boehner and Cantor were doing.
We’re in the process of education and knowing the enemy. we have to recognize and comprehend what Obama is doing, why he is doing it and his strategy and tactics. That is the FIRST step to how to fight. Otherwise, he’s just going to roll us all. You have to understand that and try to think through what’s happening and why. You also need a GOAL other than just fight. This is a process of exchange of ideas and thoughts.
[40]
Elsewhere in the letter he writes:
[41]
Remember the quote I gave you the other night!
[42]
The inmates are now running the asylum.
[43]
well spoken, ip…in any other time in our history Obama’s actions would be labeled: “Treason!”
now, of course, they are celebrated!
The left continues to gleefully slosh gasoline about…as Obama leads the way, torch in hand. What could go wrong?
[44]
We should apply Alinsky’s own rules to the analysis of the enhanced interrogation. We can’t sit with a 2009 mindset and think back to 2002. We must think with the worried minds and fully functional AQ of 2002.
[45]
Justrand or Mary — can you fixt my post
[46]
judy, howzat??
[47]
I’m reading along when the exchange between Inc and MFG on Johnson and the decision to not prosecute Davis et al, leaves me thinking about how impressed I am with the level of intelligence and discourse on this blog, the detailed expression of ideas, and supporting documentation, the unique content of the posts, and then….
Then the magpie posts….
chekote permalink
No offense but right wing blogs are becoming Groud Hog Day. Everyday: the MSM is biased. Everyday: Obama is a Marxist. Everyday; Obama is applying the Alinsky rules for radicals. Everyday: same soup. We all know this. The question is: HOW DO WE FIGHT IT?
ummmm, might I suggest by developing a set of values and principles grounded in facts with a detailed understandings of history, that includes not only the founding principles of the United States but the circumstances and factors leading up to historical and global failed ideologies. Using a strategy of approaching the issues from a thoughtful and intellectual versus purely emotional perspection. Developing responses that reflect an ideology not limited by the concepts of the world is a zero-sum game.
[48]
Thank you sir. Got to watch that hitting the shift key to slow in closing my brackets.
[49]
Judy
We have the principles. We just can’t seem to sell them. How do we sell them?
[50]
Judy,
Thanks for the kind words
Ulysses Grant was a truly great American, his magnanimity in victory enabled the Confederates to retain their pride and eventually acquiesce emotionally in the reunification of the country
Robert E Lee was a truly great American; it was his insistence after the war that the South accept defeat that kept the country from flying apart
God Bless them both
[51]
Lee Rejects Guerrilla War
[52]
VotingFemale,
I neglected to welcome you! Welcome! And thanks for commenting!
[53]
And then I read on — to nothing more than the same old tired, worn-out, backward-looking rantings and attacks on President Bush. Gosh, it sounds so much like the kool-aid drinking moonbats that I have to check the byline. Obama won because he propped up President Bush as is opponent. Obama won because he ran against President Bush and not Senator McCain. What better way to continue the Obama popularity by hauling out President Bush as the negative point whipping boy. To date a significant part of Obama’s strategy is to bash President Bush every chance he gets as part of his fallacious rhetoric, as it keeps his useful idiots foaming at the mouth, lapping up his hopey-dopey change, and ignoring his unprecedented attempt to amass power, shred the Constitution, and destroy the very fabric and basis of US exceptionalism.
Thankfully, this was followed by INC’s brilliant posts that provide exactly that historical understanding of US founding principles crucial to a winning strategy.
Che stop bashing President Bush. The past cannot be changed, doing so adds nothing to the discourse on future strategy, only facilitates Obama’s agenda, and amplifies your trollish qualities.
[54]
Che stop bashing President Bush. The past cannot be changed, doing so adds nothing to the discourse on future strategy, only facilitates Obama’s agenda, and amplifies your trollish qualities.
It is not bashing. It is trying to learn from past mistakes. We CANNOT afford another inarticulate leader. I see that plenty of people willing to make the same mistake.
[55]
Sorry for the lengthy playlist in my link above, I can’t figure out how to select individual items from the youtube playlist
[56]
Judy, one of the most exciting things I saw at a Tea Party was a young man and an elderly woman pouring over his copy of a booklet containing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The Founders still speak, and they’re working to help us win!
[57]
Do “we”? Maybe acting a little less like chicken little might help.
Pendulums swing. Those that bought into the cult of personality are already discovering that the folly of their purchase.
[58]
chekote, go read Judy’s comment in Justrand’s thread today. Here’s the end of it:
The first step for you is to understand what those principles are.
Folks won’t wake up if you don’t understand and you can’t articulate what’s at stake to them.
[59]
Don’t skip this one
Excellent.
I sense a potential paradigm shift. At the end of a multitude of missteps.
Hey Justrand and Mary — Can we start a 100 days of mistakes thread? A list the 100 stupid mistakes things that Obama and his administration have committed that reflect why the Zero was not ready to lead.
[60]
Judy, thanks for the link to Andy McCarthy. I’ve put it in the post in an update.
[61]
Che — like most amateurs, your posts telegraph your intentions. Your visceral aversion to Governor Palin arises from your own psychosis and blocks your ability to comprehend her appeal and potential to be the 2012 equivalent of Ronald Reagan. Now whether she emerges as a candidate for 2012 or another rises is unknown; however, princess it isn’t just your slip showing, but your maladroit arse.
[62]
Andy McCarthy really goes after Obama. His column makes me want to stand up and cheer:
and
and
[63]
judyt2009 to chekote: “princess it isn’t just your slip showing, but your maladroit arse”
When we get around to a “Comment of the Year” contest this will CLEARLY be the one to beat!!
LOL!!!
[64]
judyt2009…I like the “100 Mistakes” thread idea…I’ll talk to Justmary and see when she wants to post one up!!
It may not be tonight though…’cause Justmary just got home, and has to feed Justkids, play with Justdog and prepare the castle for Justhusband!
[65]
COYOTE~~~Poster child for this Eric hoffer quote:
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind.
Eric Hoffer
[66]
GREAT quote, ip!!
[67]
INC — my thoughts exactly on the McCarthy column — it was a
yea, YEA! YEA!!!! read.
[68]
Justrand
Judy is jealous because she was never daddy’s little girl. I forgive her.
[69]
I like the 100 mistakes thing…..but if I am not mistaken, there is actually a site keeping track of his mistakes already. In fact, I think the site is dedicated to it. If I find it, I will post a link to it for you.
[70]
zi’ve seen a lot of WH press secretaries in my time, but Gibbs is the biggest joke.
[71]
chekote…”Daddy’s little girl” is even deadlier than Daddy…and Daddy is a former Marine.
Jus’ sayin’
[72]
tsk, tsk, Chekote –
I certainly was my daddy’s little girl and apple of his eye — but when I became a woman I stopped acting like and responding to life as a petulant child.
[73]
judyt2009 -
That’s gonna leave a mark.
[74]
Dr. Phillipa,
You should try Divafying yourself a bit. It is fun. I promise.
[75]
Oh, Chekote — jealous no, but reproach, disdain, pity, and irritation certainly come to mind.
I also suspect that your constant need for attention and drama queen diva antics that you were far from daddy’s little girl. But more likely starved for any attention you could get.
[76]
Cat fight puke.
[77]
bc3b — the thought skipped across my mind this morning (when listening to one of those top soundbites of the week) that Gibbs cannot possibly be as bad as he is unintentionally. I decided that Gibbs must put on a significant amount of the uh,uh,uhs so that when the ZERO is off the teleprompter his own uhs, uhs, uhs do appear so inept.
Sort of like no one in the kingdom can be taller than the king.
[78]
Judy you give the administration too much credit.
[79]
KH — it was just a thought – because, as Bc3B says, Gibbs is so terrible that he is a joke — so they must be expecting us to laugh.
[80]
Earlier in the week someone reference a juggler metaphor that Obama has thrown so many balls in the air that our attention is distracted and he is sneaking something worse past us.
Now I wonder with the interrogation memos and potential investigation and prosecution of Bush administration officials was this intended or did Obama not expect that backlash.
The Congressional Republicans have been rather silent during the first 100 days, but now as it approaches the end we are seeing life from some in Congress. Is this because they were stirred to action and defense by the interrogation issue or were they trying to give Obama his “honeymoon” and are now going to
[81]
“Gibbs is so terrible that he is a joke — so they must be expecting us to laugh.”
—
Court jester.
The memo dust up was simple incompetence in trying to have it both ways, be loved by all, and he could help but mix in on of his best assets – naivete.
Obama is certainly not a decider.
Hey if Rove can be accused of having hurricane targeting technology, certainly then Pelosi being the puppet master controlling Obama’s thoughts isn’t out of the equation right?
[82]
Judy,
The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Mork and Mindy were funny. I fully expect to see a stuttering ventriloquist come from stage left and stick his hand up Gibbs’ ass. Just sayin’.
[83]
barack o’vomit