Archive for the ‘President George W. Bush’ Category
The DOJ Wouldn’t, Would They?
August 29th, 2009
In more than one conversation as George W. Bush was wrapping up his tenure as President, there were those who expressed that perhaps he should offer a blanket pardon to himself and those in his administration, primarily those who were involved in any facet of the War on Terror.
Recognizing the character and conviction of the former president, it never entered my mind that he would do such a thing.
Mr. Bush had realized foreign policy decisions based on intelligence afforded by not only our, but other nation’s intelligence, and was guided by legal opinions offered by those in the Justice Department.
He obeyed his Oath of Office in his choice to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic, and made the most difficult decision any Commander In Chief must, to commit our men and women to war.
Many who initially supported Bush in these decisions became weak-kneed as it became politically expedient to do so, but to his credit, he never did.
Were there errors in judgment by the former President, members of his administration and military personnel in the execution of the war, yes. Did they work to correct those missteps? Yes.
Has there ever been throughout history, a perfect war, one which did not require a change if not a complete overhaul of strategy? If there had been, we would never have had to mourn the loss of one of our bravest.
Channeling back to the original thought of this post, the pardons, after reading this today, I admit that my thinking they would never be necessary may have been reckless:
And then there is the Center for Constitutional Rights, a Marxist organization that for years has coordinated legal representation for terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. The CCR has been attempting to convince Germany, France, Spain, and other countries to file war-crime indictments against former Bush administration officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. In representing America’s enemies, CCR has collaborated with many private lawyers, who also volunteered their services — several of whom are now working in the Obama Justice Department. Indeed, Holder’s former firm boasts that it still represents 16 Gitmo detainees (the number was previously higher). And, for help shaping detainee policy, Holder recently hired Jennifer Daskal for DOJ’s National Security Division — a lawyer from Human Rights Watch with no prior prosecutorial experience, whose main qualification seems to be the startling advocacy she has done for enemy combatants.
Put it all together and it’s really not that hard to figure out what is going on here.
Transnationalists from outside and, now, inside our government have been ardent supporters of prosecutions against American officials who designed and carried out the Bush counterterrorism policies that kept this country safe after 9/11. The U.N.’s top torture monitor is demanding legal action, almost certainly as a prelude to calling for action by an international tribunal — such as the ICC — if the Justice Department fails to indict. Meantime, law-enforcement authorities in Spain and elsewhere are weighing charges against the same U.S. officials, spurred on by the CCR and human-rights groups that now have friends in high American places. In foreign and international courts, the terrorist-friendly legal standards preferred by Europe and the U.N. would make convictions easier to obtain and civil suits easier to win.
Read the entire piece by Andrew McCarthy. It encompasses a great deal of research which lend credence to his conclusions. Should things play out in the fashion he describes, America would face devastating consequences at the hands of those doing nothing more than appeasing a small voting block which they must please in order to remain in power.
The Holder DOJ has proven they are willing to take on the CIA. Would or will they move to allow foreign nations to attempt to prosecute American citizens, including a former President and Vice President, for war crimes?
At one time I would have offered a resounding no! The top law enforcement official of our land would never sacrifice an American (to another nation) for political gain. Today, I’m not so certain, and that to me is a great tragedy.
Posted in 
A Czar For This, A Czar For That
August 22nd, 2009
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had only one.
Bill Clinton had three, George W. Bush, four.
Barack Obama, thirty two and counting.
Senator Byrd questions these appointments constitutionality:
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who for decades has battled White House power and championed congressional clout, is questioning President Obama’s appointment of “czars” to oversee key policy areas, including energy and climate.
“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Byrd wrote in a letter to Obama. “At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
The Senator offers a good argument against the executive selection of czars. They are not duly elected officials, yet they wield a tremendous amount of power and are accountable to only a sitting President.
What is striking about the excessive use of these appointments by the current administration, is the lack of publicity surrounding them.
Imagine for a moment the coverage if the four former presidents referenced above would have stacked their White House with thirty-two powerful overseers who had no Congressional accountability.
Has the pounding drum beat left your head yet?
This may well be the strategy by those in the White House to keep Obama above the fray.
He cannot be held accountable for decisions his czars have made, after all, he would only choose the best and the brightest to assume these tasks, and if they provide him with faulty information it cannot possibly be his responsibility, right?
We are witnessing the change promised for months upon end. A federal government run by men and women selected, not elected, and this time, the phrase is one hundred percent factual. (Click image for further information)
*Welcome to the readers linking from Free Republic and Flopping Aces*
