Sen. Casey (D-PA): Threat Unfolding in Pakistan

Posted By SenatorBobCasey - Sunday, May 31st, 2009 at 3:31 AM

Over the past few weeks, we have all seen the headlines regarding the troubling developments in Pakistan. I am deeply concerned by the gains achieved by Taliban extremists in Pakistan, who seized territory a mere 60 miles from Pakistan's capital, Islamabad. These extremists are a threat to the United States because they provide sanctuary to Al Qaeda's senior leadership, who continue to plot attacks against our Nation. Most alarming of all is the prospect that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could be compromised and nuclear warheads or fissile material end up in the hands of Al Qaeda or Taliban militants. Since joining the Senate, I have highlighted the grave threat posed by a terrorist group acquiring the materials and technology to explode a crude nuclear device, which could destroy a major American city. That theoretical threat is now unfolding before our eyes in Pakistan unless we work with the Pakistani government to reverse current trends. Pakistani President Zardari and Afghan President Karzai were in Washington recently for a unique "trilateral" session to meet with each other and with President Obama. I had the chance to join them for lunch, along with other U.S. Senators. Both men faced a skeptical audience. While the United States can help Pakistan build its capacity to combat extremism, ultimately the Pakistani people must recognize that this war is their war and hence only they can truly win it. My colleagues and I were united, on both sides of the aisle, in delivering that message.
Furthermore, Dick Holbrooke, our special envoy to the region, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I sit. Holbrooke fleshed out the President's strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think the President's new approach, focused on dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda, has real promise, but I worry that we may not have much time left. That is why it is so important the Congress pass the FY 2009 supplemental measure to ensure that the additional funding requested by our military and the State Department is available for immediate implementation, especially in Pakistan.
Click here to read my floor statement on our strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

10 Most Important Obama Faith Moments - by U.S. News and World Report

1. Rick Warren's Inauguration Day Invocation

(Charlie Archambault for USN&WR)

 

Warren speaks at Obama's inauguration.

 

President-elect Obama caused an uproar among liberals and gays when he invited evangelical megapastor Rick Warren—an outspoken opponent of gay marriage and abortion rights—to give the opening prayer at his inauguration. An invitation to the Rev. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, to deliver an invocation at a separate inauguration week event was widely seen as a reaction to the flap, although the Obama team denied it. Warren’s 41/2-minute prayer avoided political controversy, included subtle nods to Judaism and Islam, and concluded with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, Christianity’s most widely recognized prayer.

 

 

2. Granting First TV Interview to Arabic Language Network

(Al-Arabiya/AP)

 

Obama is interviewed on al-Arabiya cable network.

 

One of the earliest surprises from the new administration was Obama's decision to grant his first television interview as president to al-Arabiya, an Arabic-language network based in Dubai. The gesture spoke to Obama's intentions to repair U.S. relations with the Muslim world, badly damaged by President Bush's invasion of Iraq and his broader war on terrorism. "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama told al-Arabiya. "The same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task." After battling false rumors on the campaign trail that he was a Muslim—both Obama's estranged father and Indonesian stepfather were Muslim—the president used the interview to acknowledge that "I have Muslim members of my family."

 

3. Reversing Mexico City Policy on Family Planning Providers Abroad

 

(Alex Wong/Getty Images)

 

An abortion-rights activist holds a sign while an antiabortion demonstrator holds a rose during the annual March for Life event held on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Among Obama's first executive orders was one lifting the ban on federal funds for family-planning groups abroad that endorse or offer abortions, known as the Mexico City policy. Antiabortion groups decried the move as evidence that Obama's pledge to take a new Democratic tack on abortion—one that emphasizes abortion reduction—was empty rhetoric. But White House aides said the president avoided lifting the ban on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, as President Clinton had done, as a show of respect to abortion foes. "This is a signal that the new administration is going to take a different approach and tone from the old culture wars," said a Democrat close to the administration. In a statement on Roe's anniversary, Obama reaffirmed his support for abortion rights but acknowledged those on the other side of the issue: "While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make." The next day, the president reversed the Mexico City policy.

 

4. Opening Rallies With Prayer

(Logan Mock-Bunting/Getty Images)

 

Military personnel bow their heads at the invocation before Obama delivers an address at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

 

George W. Bush started cabinet meetings with prayer and encouraged the formation of Bible study groups at the White House, but President Obama has gone a big step further in embracing religion by opening many of his public events with prayers that have been commissioned and vetted by administration aides. The prayers, which have kicked off at least a half dozen of the president's outside-the-beltway rallies, are written and read by local community members who've been selected by the White House. Interviews with former White House aides and official presidential archivists going back to the Carter administration turn up no evidence of similar programs. "If a similar thing had been done by President Bush's White House, I guarantee you there would have been a lot of people crying foul," says Bill Wichterman, President Bush's liaison to religious groups. The White House declined to comment about the program, other than to say that such prayers have been standard since Obama began his presidential campaign.

 

5. Launching White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

(Jim Lo Scalzo for USN&WR)

 

Joshua DuBois heads the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

 

President Obama not only retained George W. Bush's controversial faith-based office; he expanded its mission. In addition to helping social service groups get federal aid—the office's sole purpose under Bush—Obama has tasked it with reducing demand for abortion, promoting responsible fatherhood, and facilitating global interfaith dialogue. Rebranded the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and led by the Obama campaign's director of religious affairs, the office has seen the postponement by the administration of the most contentious issue surrounding it: whether to allow religious groups to hire only fellow believers with federal funds. Liberal groups say they'll object to such state-sponsored discrimination. Conservative religious groups say they'll back out of Obama's faith-based program if they're forced to hire from outside of their faith traditions.

 

6. Convening a Faith Advisory Council

(Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

 

Tony Dungy, former head coach of the Indianapolis Colts, was offered a spot on Obama's faith advisory council.

 

On the same day that he rolled out his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, President Obama announced the formation of an outside advisory council for the office. The council will also advise Obama on other matters, from healthcare to foreign policy, giving religion "an institutionally higher profile than under President Bush," says Richard Land, the public policy chief of the Southern Baptist Convention. "No president that I've dealt with," says Land, who has worked with administrations going back to Reagan, "has had anything like it." The 25-person council includes religious leaders from a variety of faith traditions, as well as chiefs of secular nonprofits, and counts both conservatives and liberals as members. It provoked controversy in April, when word leaked that the White House had invited former NFL Coach Tony Dungy to join. Liberals blasted Dungy's support for a gay marriage ban in Indiana, and he ultimately turned down the invitation, citing scheduling conflicts with council meetings.

 

7. Joe Biden's Receiving Ashes on Ash Wednesday

(Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

 

Biden pauses while speaking during a Recovery Plan Implementation meeting on Ash Wednesday.

 

Vice President Joe Biden is only the second Catholic in American history to occupy one of the nation's top two posts. The other was President John F. Kennedy. And Biden's public appearances with an Ash Wednesday smudge on his forehead in February were a sign of how comfortable Catholic politicians have become in expressing their faith. Biden's support for abortion rights has attracted criticism from some U.S. bishops, but the White House has worked hard to cultivate Catholic leaders and groups, including the bishops. President Kennedy was apparently never photographed with an Ash Wednesday smudge, possibly to avoid stirring up anti-Catholic sentiment, which was once much stronger in the American electorate than it is today.

 

8. Lifting Restrictions on Federally-Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research

(Darren Hauck/Getty Images)

 

An employee of WiCell Research Institute prepares stem cells for culture.

 

In reversing President Bush's limits on federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, Obama has the support of most Americans, according to polls. Scientists say the research may yield treatments or cures for debilitating diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. But Obama's executive order on stem cells riled religious conservatives, who equate the destruction of human embryos in the course of scientific research with abortion. The National Institutes of Health's proposed guidelines on the research disappointed some embryonic stem cell research advocates by prohibiting federal funds for therapeutic cloning or for the creation of embryos expressly for research. But conservative Christian groups, who object to research on embryos left over from in vitro fertilization clinics—which are already earmarked for destruction—were also critical. Still, in lifting restrictions on the embryonic stem cell research, Obama spoke directly to religious Americans: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."

 

 

9. Announcing Plans to Give Notre Dame's Commencement Address

(Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)

 

Members of the antiabortion-rights organization Operation Rescue protest near the White House.

 

Six U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have given commencement addresses at the University of Notre Dame. But President Obama's announcement in March that he'd accepted the school's invitation to speak at this year's graduation enraged conservative Catholic groups. They fault Notre Dame for lending a prestigious Catholic platform to a politician whose policies on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research clash with church teaching. A few dozen bishops have also voiced objections to Obama's appearance at Notre Dame, scheduled for May 17. But the university's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, has refused to bow to pressure to rescind the invitation, arguing that it "should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research." 

 

10. Speaking to Muslim World From Turkey

(Salih Zeki Fazlioglu/AFP/Getty Images)

 

Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan 

tour the Sultanahmet Mosque in Istanbul.

 

President Obama used his first appearance as president in a majority-Muslim nation, an overnight stay in Turkey in April, to reach out to the broader Islamic world. "Let me say this as clearly as I can," he said in an address to the Turkish parliament. "The United States is not at war with Islam." Obama also got personal in the speech, citing his years spent in Indonesia as a child: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family or have lived in a Muslim-majority country—I know, because I am one of them." After the address, Obama toured a historic Turkish mosque and met with Istanbul's top Muslim cleric. Among the trip's biggest surprises: word from administration officials that the president still planned to give a separate "Muslim speech" from a primarily Muslim nation within the first 100 days or so of his administration. Many White House observers thought his address to the Turkish parliament fulfilled his pledge to give such a speech.

 

Obama's 12 Most Important Decisions in His First 100 Days

 The following are the top 12 most important decision made by President Obama since he has taken office as the 44th President of the United States.

 

1. The Economic Stimulus

Obama let congressional Democrats take the lead in writing the $787 billion economic stimulus package rather than submitting his own bill—a key tactical move designed to get a fast legislative victory and overcome nearly unanimous Republican opposition,

2. The Bailouts

Amid a meltdown of the financial industry, Obama moved quickly to bail out some of the nation's biggest banks and investment houses and to rescue major automakers.

 

3. Healthcare Overhaul

Despite the economic crisis, Obama announced his goal of quickly overhauling the healthcare system, even if it risks overloading the political system with big-ticket priorities.

 

4. Withdrawal From Iraq

Even though Obama promised during the campaign to withdraw troops from Iraq in 16 months, he changed the timeline to within 19 months of his taking office.

 

5. Sending Troops to Afghanistan

Obama announced he would send about 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to fight terrorism.

 

6. Closing Guantánamo

Obama set the goal of eventually closing the detention facility for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which has been the site of prisoner abuse and has caused international embarrassment for the United States.

 

7. Cuba Policy

Fulfilling a campaign promise, Obama relaxed travel and financial restrictions on Cuban-Americans relating to Cuba.

 

8. Stem Cell Research

Obama reversed the Bush administration policy on federally funded stem cell research, angering some conservatives.

 

9. Harsh Interrogation

The new administration banned harsh interrogation techniques used under the Bush administration in questioning suspected terrorists. Some have called those techniques torture. Later, Obama released memos detailing the methods used under the Bush administration.

 

10. Cabinet Nominations

While building his administration, Obama botched some cabinet nominations, notably former Sen. Tom Daschle to be secretary of health and human services and informal healthcare reform "czar." Daschle's background was inadequately scrutinized, and he withdrew from consideration.

 

11. Clinton Aides

Despite his call for bringing "change" to Washington, Obama brought former advisers to President Bill Clinton back into the government, including former first lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers as chief White House economics adviser, thus choosing experience over change.

 

12. Somali Pirates

After Somali pirates took an American captain hostage, Obama authorized Navy SEALs to kill three pirates who were holding the American in a lifeboat off the coast of Somalia. The hostage, Richard Phillips, was rescued, and the incident demonstrated Obama's resolve.

 

President to announce GM bankruptcy on Monday morning - What does this mean?

Written by editor James of  'Obama in the White House'


Tomorrow morning. President Obama will announce at a 11:30 a.m. press conference that General Motors will file for bankruptcy according to officials that are close to the talks. So what does that mean? GM will still be manufacturing cars and trucks, but they will be doing so under bankruptcy protection. Back in 2005, there were talks about GM filing for bankruptcy. So it's been a while now that GM has had problems. Back then, chairman and Chief Executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. told 325,000 employees in an internal memo that filing for bankruptcy is "unnecessary". He claimed back then that filing for Chapter 11 was "contrary to the interests of our employees, stock and bondholders, dealers, and our suppliers and customers". It was reported that the Chief Executive said that bankruptcy was "unthinkable". So GM was in trouble 4 years ago, but failed to take the necessary steps to avoid bankruptcy protection, and now they have no choice than to file. Read the entire Businessweek report back in 2005 right here....   What if GM did go bankrupt?
What would a GM bankruptcy look like? No one would even think in their wildest of imaginations that Chrysler would also file. It will be one of the most massive Chapter 11 filing of all time -- a watershed moment in the history of American business, with far-reaching consequences for all of GM's stakeholders. While the direct impact on the national economy would be relatively modest, the Midwest would be hit hard by the combination of job losses at GM and its suppliers and benefits cuts for the company's retirees. If you are near retirement, the only think you might say is 'good luck'.
The coming week will be very eye-opening. GM filing is just part of the big picture developing around the president. You will hear allot of sad stories on your local and national news channels. 2009 will definitely be one of the worst years in economic history, and hopefully the plans of President Obama will work to start a recovery in the job market. In the mean time, people need protection. The bankruptcies in the North East, especially around Detroit, will skyrocket. Only time will tell. All we can do now is sit back and go for the ride.
Will the people affected in the north east vote for the same president in 2012? Unfortunately, many of these poor souls will blame President Obama for loosing their jobs, and will not vote for him. They will not recognize the fact that prior President George Bush should be held responsible. The statement just made is the opinion of the editor of this blog.  But on the other hand, if somehow Obama manages to get people back to work and turn GM back in the right direct so they can profit, then maybe he may have a chance to regain those votes from job stricken cities. 
People look at President Obamas record now in 2 ways. First, most people will tell you that President Obama has been very busy for only being in office for 4 months. He seems to have the energy to handle just about everything at once. But on one hand, people will tell you that he is destroying the nation, and other will tell you that he is saving it. One thing for sure, he is doing something. Our prior president, George Bush, was too complacent of a president for these bad economic times. He was looking at the world through a pinhole, devoting most of his time to terrorism and Iraq, not even recognizing the methods he used to get information from prisoners he considered terrorists is considered as torture, now outlawed by the current President Obama. Did President Bush ever once in his two terms in office show any sign that the economy was about to collapse until during the elections? I don't think so, but President Bush's timing on the announcement of the failing economy just before he left office just about destroyed John McCain's chances to win the election.
The republicans now have only to blame themselves for what we are facing now. It just so happens that President Obama will take the heat for things that happen to the U.S. citizens now, as the problems of the entire world are now on his shoulders, and likewise will accept the praise for everything that he does right.

Levin: Memo's show that what Cheney is saying is a "lie"

As reported by CNN,a report surfaced that Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate ASrmed Services Committee, claims that what former Vice-President Dick Cheney's said about waterboarding was definitely not the truth. Why did Cheney think that President Obama would continue to play a game of cat and mouse with him. President Obama is totally focused on his job, and he has a Cabinet of men and women backing him. He has his whole presidency in front of him, and now a former vice-president tries to outwardly say that his belief in waterboarding is good and that it worked in Bush's administration. Now, he has to face other people claiming that he is not telling the truth. He opened up a 'can of worms' by doing so, and it looks like the waterboarding issue will now continue. I'm sure that former President George Bush is not too appreciative of his comments. Maybe he needs to take advise from the former commander and chief, and stay quiet. President Bush never criticized Obama during the election process, and never has during the Obama Presidency. President Obama and former President George Bush appearently talk. Cheney must now face a statement made by Levin, stating the new administration deems the techniques torture and "gives the lie to Mr. Cheney's claims." Is Cheney lying? He may now have to face a committee to investigate the charges that he is not tell the truth about the former administration that he was part of.
Facts now surfacing from the justice department now show that Bush administration lawyers authorized the use of techniques such as sleep deprivation, slapping, stress positions and waterboarding, which produces the sensation of drowning. In contrast, Obama states that "I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture," as he said to a joint session of Congress in February. Now President Obama says he is trying to clean up "a mess" left behind by the Bush administration.
Watch an interview at the White House discussing 'watereboarding' and Obama policies not to take part in torture.

Obama Family Tree

Obama's sis, Maya, helped reach out to Asian voters 

The throng of Asian-American donors drew closer, drinks in hand, to hear Barack Obama's sister describe the wide arc of his life: beyond politics and Chicago, into his childhood in Indonesia and Hawaii.

OBAMA FAMILY TREE.PDF

• Photos: Obama Family Tree 

• Obama's sis, Maya, helps reach out to Asian voters (07/02/08)
• Son of presidents and tribal chiefs (09/09/07)
• NATHANIEL BUNCH (09/09/07)
• CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CLARK (09/09/07)
• ELIZA JANE CLEMMONS (09/09/07)
• CATHERINE GOODNIGHT DUNHAM (09/09/07)
• JACOB MACKEY DUNHAM (09/09/07)
• JONATHAN SINGLETARY ALIAS DUNHAM (09/09/07)
• MADELYN PAYNE DUNHAM (09/09/07)
• RALPH WALDO EMERSON DUNHAM (09/09/07)
• STANLEY ANN DUNHAM (09/09/07)
• STANLEY ARMOUR DUNHAM (09/09/07)
• GABRIEL DUVALL (09/09/07)
• MAREEN DUVALL (09/09/07)
• CHRISTIAN GUTKNECHT-GOODNIGHT (09/09/07)
• HALF-BROTHER DAVID (09/09/07)
• HALF-BROTHER GEORGE (09/09/07)
• HALF-BROTHER MARK (09/09/07)
• HALF SIBLINGS (09/09/07)
• SAMUEL HINCKLEY AND SARAH SOOLE (09/09/07)
• FALMOUTH KEARNEY (09/09/07)
• EDWARD MCCURRY (09/09/07)
• HARBIN WILBURN MCCURRY (09/09/07)
• ABO OBAMA (09/09/07)
• ABONGO (ROY) OBAMA (09/09/07)
• AUMA OBAMA (09/09/07)
• BARACK OBAMA SR. (09/09/07)
• BERNARD OBAMA (09/09/07)
• HUSSEIN ONYANGO OBAMA (09/09/07)
• SARAH OBAMA (09/09/07)
• OWINY (09/09/07)
• ROLLA C. PAYNE AND LEONA MCCURRY PAYNE (09/09/07)
• LOLO SOETORO (09/09/07)
• MAYA SOETORO-NG (09/09/07)
• JOHN WILSON AND RUTH WILBURN WILSON (09/09/07)
• MARGARET BELLE WRIGHT (09/09/07

Ford extends buyout offer

In a shrude move just days ago, Ford extended its buyout offer to approximately 42,000 U.S. factory workers who happen to be represented by the United Auto Workers union. The deadline which now has been moved to June 26, give the workers a little more time to decide. Ford is the only U.S. auto maker that has decided that it can run without the help of the Federal government. However, Ford knows that it must trim its work force, and offered the buyouts when the union agreed to additional cost cuts and changes to the funding for a UAW-aligned trust for retiree health care. Since 2006, Ford has already cut it workforce in half, but more are to come.

• GM bondholders reject offer
• GM and Chrysler: Make or break week
• Chrysler, dealers await judgment day
• GM gets another $4B from U.S.
• Ford extends buyout offer

Most likely Ford will be closing some of its dealerships soon, just like GM/Chrysler has announced that they will do. But Ford believes that they have what it takes to stay in business. There will be sacrificing by everyone involved, but at least they will still be in business. Unless something changes, it would be a good guess that they may be the only auto giant that would not face bankruptcy. General Motors and Chrysler has just a very short deadline now to come up with a plan to become profitable or they will be next to file bankruptcy. It would become the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history if it took place.

Obama picks Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Judge to replace David Souter

In a much anticipated choice of Barack Obama, he nominiated federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. She represents hispanics for the first time for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice position. At age 54, she has now reached the highest office you can obtain as a judge. Still, she must be confirmed. President Obama says Sotomayor "is an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice," during a White House announcement. He believes that she has more experience which qualifies her for the job, more than any other seated judge when they acquired their office. Humbled for the nomination, she thanked President Obama for the nominiation. She claims "My heart is bursting with gratitude. I am an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences."
President Obama met her briefly for about an hour Thursday, and did not make the announcement of his choice until today. Predident Obama most likely made his decision, but did not want to make any formal announcements until today. She will now be vacating the position as judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and received a nomination by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. President Clinton elevated her to her current seat. Obama's nominee will replace retiring Justice David Souter, who announced this month he would step down when the court's current session ends this summer.
She had a tuff road to where she is now, as she started her humble beginning living in a housing project in South Bronx, but then went on to attend Princeton University and eventually attended Yale Law School.




CNN's Jim Acosta reports Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court

Cheney Lost to Bush

 

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: May 21, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

President Obama and Dick Cheney conspired on Thursday to propagate a myth. The myth is that we lived through an eight-year period of Bush-Cheney anti-terror policy and now we have entered a very different period called the Obama-Biden anti-terror policy. As both Obama and Cheney understand, this is a completely bogus distortion of history.

Skip to next paragraph

David Brooks

Go to Columnist Page »

The reality is that after Sept. 11, we entered a two- or three-year period of what you might call Bush-Cheney policy. The country was blindsided. Intelligence officials knew next to nothing about the threats arrayed against them. The Bush administration tried just about everything to discover and prevent threats. The Bush people believed they were operating within the law but they did things most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive.
The Bush-Cheney period lasted maybe three years. For Dick Cheney those might be the golden years. For Democrats, it is surely the period they want to forever hang around the necks of the Republican Party. But that period ended long ago.
By 2005, what you might call the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun. Gradually, in fits and starts, a series of Bush administration officials — including Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger — tried to rein in the excesses of the Bush-Cheney period. They didn’t win every fight, and they were prodded by court decisions and public outrage, but the gradual evolution of policy was clear.
From 2003 onward, people like Bellinger and Goldsmith were fighting against legal judgments that allowed enhanced interrogation techniques. By 2006, Rice and Hadley brought Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in from a secret foreign prison to regularize detainee procedures. In 2007, Rice refused to support an executive order reviving the interrogation program. Throughout the second Bush term, officials were trying to close Guantánamo, pleading with foreign governments to take some prisoners, begging senators to allow the transfer of prisoners onto American soil. (It didn’t occur to them that they could announce the closure of Gitmo first, then figure out what to do with prisoners.)
Cheney and Obama might pretend otherwise, but it wasn’t the Obama administration that halted the practice of waterboarding. It was a succession of C.I.A. directors starting in March 2003, even before a devastating report by the C.I.A. inspector general in 2004.
When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he’s not really attacking the Obama administration. He’s attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way.
The inauguration of Barack Obama has simply not marked a dramatic shift in the substance of American anti-terror policy. It has marked a shift in the public credibility of that policy.
In the first place, it is absurd to say this administration doesn’t take terrorism seriously. Obama has embraced the Afghan surge, a strategy that was brewing at the end of the Bush years. He has stepped up drone activity in Pakistan. He has promoted aggressive counterinsurgency fighters and racked up domestic anti-terror accomplishments.
As for the treatment of terror suspects, Jack Goldsmith has a definitive piece called “The Cheney Fallacy” online at The New Republic. He lists a broad range of policies — Guantánamo, habeas corpus, military commissions, rendition, interrogation and so on. He shows how, in most cases, the Obama policy represents a continuation of or a gradual evolution from the final Bush policy.
What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”
Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.
Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure. 

Dick Cheney - The New Conservative Party Leader?

written by Editor James

Talking about issues, for some reason former vice president Dick Cheney came out of his shell of 8 years and claims in a recent CBS interview that the current administration's reversal of Bush policies "means in the future we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years."  Really Mr. Cheney?????!!!!?!?!?!?
For the past eight years, he's done nothing except hide as a reclusive, running to hidden bunkers at undisclosed locations. He was there to back up the President of the United States in case President Bush could not serve his office of President. But now, the reclusive former vice president claims that President Obama put Americans in danger of a new terrorist attack, by promising to close Guantanamo Bay prison and banning torture. Yes, he openly condones torture, something that Obama claims is against the law.
The guy that should be defending his actions is former President Bush himself, but when Obama took over the office, Bush went quietly to his new house in Texas, and slipped intentionally into anonymity and honored protocol by staying silent about his successor.
But the former vice president Cheney, known for working invisible behind the scenes has come out of his shell and now tries to defend the Republican party, and at the same time, condemning President Obama for reversing so many policies of President Bush. Is he the new Republican leader? Maybe in thought, but he would never run again for office. He took shots at his Presidents first-term secretary of state, retired Army general , corner chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and lifelong Republican who endorsed Obama's candidacy, Mr. Colin Powell.
So what did the RNC chairman say this time, now about Dick Cheney? Absolutely nothing. Why? Because he is nothing short of a coward, as he will never talk against anyone in his party, and only looks to talk negative against Democrats, especially President Obama. So what may be his motives? He most likely is trying to steel the spotlight from this Democratic administration, but every time he tries, people see right through him, and less people believe him for every speech he makes. Today, there are maybe only 20% of the voting American people who now support the Republicans, but there are many more who consider themselves conservative. They themselves do not want to be associated with the Republican party, as these die-hard conservatives don't consider the present Republican party the correct party for the conservative principles. A new party may be formed some day, and maybe for the better.

Steele - A Disgrace of the Republican Party

The following is a personal statement by the editor James of the blog 'Obama in the White House'.

One person who apparently admires the new President is the one and only Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, as he can't stop criticizing President Obama. A week after he criticized President Obama  that he should not have received an honorary degree from Notre Dame, he says that the Republicans should not be afraid to criticize, and it is important if they want to regain their relevance. What relevance? How can you gain relevance by criticism?

Read the following two articles about Michael Steele, and watch how important it is for him to criticise a president who appears to have done more than the past president of his own party for the last 8 years, at least on the home front.

GOP leader says honorary degree 'inappropriate'

Steele: GOP must confront Obama's celebrity appeal

Steele claims that President Obama is acting like a celebrity. If a Republican was President instead of a Democrat, does he think the President of his party wouldn't act the same? What is wrong with being cool, as he claims Obama is? What's wrong with having qualities that America believes are 'cool' and what is wrong with being a 'celebrity'? Isn't it allot better than a previous president who didn't practice much to keep his soldiers safe?
In the past four months, President Obama has made the operations of the government noticeable by the people, and has been uncovering many ghosts in Bush's past. The secrecy of the past President is almost a crime in itself. Bush had his chances to become a celebrity, as any good President would be, practicing as the leader of the free world. President Obama is leading the way in trying to heal the economy of the world, not just of the United states. He again is trying to fix something that President Bush had a big hand in starting, and that's destroying the global economy.
Steele claims "this is not American Idol." Maybe not, but President Obama is an idol of many Americans, especially amongst the black people of this country. Don't you think that Steele would rather trade places with Obama in a heartbeat? I don't believe that he has ever said so, but why then is he so up to criticize a popular president who does have celebrity status?

Michael Steele to me is a disgrace to his party, and should step down as the Republican National Committee chairman. If the Republican party ever plans on winning the White House again, they must ONLY talk about policies, and not about a President that is popular amongst the American people, even if he has celebrity status or not.

Obama still talks to Bush, but cuts no corners on how Bush administered policies

Yesterday it was reported by CNN.com's Kristi Keck that President Obama has been keeping in touch with former President Bush since succeeding him. Wow... All this time, President Bush has been keeping quiet while our new president slams him time and time again. President Obama claims that it's kind of a tradition to keep in touch with an ex-president. Recently, President Obama claims that the Bush administration is the blame for what has happened after the 9/11 attack. Obama mentions that the previous government "cut too many corners and made some decisions that were contrary to who we are as a people." Would President Obama outwardly say that Bush was one of the worst presidents in history? He fell short of commenting on the ideas floating around that Bush practiced torture. In this case being as kind natured as our new president is, most likely he would never say such a thing in a report that the media would tear apart, but you could only assume that knowing that Obama was put in this mess mainly because of the incompetence of the former president, that the idea has never been ruled out for Obama. Yet, Obama gives President Bush credit for some of his mistakes, but says that there are still consequences, for example, failing to act on the situation in Guantanamo. He calls the prison problem there a very messy situation. President Obama is taking the heat from Congress regarding Guantanamo, but it is the opinion of this editor that eventually when Guantanamo is only a thought,the people will look back and decide that it was the best thing to do.
Obama has declassified many documents in his short 4 months in office, but yet President Bush has failed to criticize the new president. Unlike former vice-president Cheney, who has just recently openly criticized the President, has been gaining popularity with the people, mainly the 20% of the American people who are still considered Republicans. Bush wasn't even concerned to watch the speeches of Obama and Cheney, but instead decided to travel to New Mexico as he was a keynote speaker to students at Artesia high School at a fund raising dinner.

Obama picks the first black NASA chief to oversee the Space Agency

Lately, Obama started a long line of appointments, and a few more on the way. The first one is known, as Obama picked a space shuttle veteran to become the first black NASA chief, and the second will be a Supreme Court Justice, which should be named next week. As head of NASA, Retired Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr. will oversee a broad review of agency's ambitions for manned and robotic space exploration. His nomination still must be approved by the Senate, and he has a long resume of military and NASA experience. He serviced as a chief executive of a defense and aerospace consulting firm and briefly worked as an aerospace lobbyist.
So what will his goals with NASA be in the near future? He will be in charge of winding down the very old shuttle program and will work on a goal stated by Obama, sending another man on the moon by 2020. By then, the NASA program will have many moon projects on the agenda, and possibly build a livable housing unit on the moon, along with keeping up with updates of the U.S.space station.
Obama wants to spend money monitoring climate change of the earth from space, but there are many fiscal challenges, as there is only an $18.7 billion budget for year 2010, and that is only up 5% from the previous year.
Why did Obama pick Retired Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr. for the job? According to Sen. Bill Nelson,(D-Fla.)"He understands the workings of NASA and the importance of America remaining a leader in science and technology through space exploration." Bill Nelson, and Charles Bolden flew together on the space shuttle Columbia in 1986. Bolden flew 3 more missions later.
He commanded two shuttle missions, the last in 1994, and has more than 680 hours in space. He has served in a variety of other positions at the space agency, including as an assistant deputy administrator.

Commentary: Obama's call on photos saved lives

• Story Highlights
• Brian Wise: President's decision to oppose release of photos was well-founded
• He says initial release of Abu Ghraib photos sparked attacks on U.S. troops
• Wise says releasing photos would have endangered U.S. troops
• Abuse claims are being investigated by the Pentagon, he says

                                           updated 12:04 p.m. EDT, Thu May 21, 2009

By Brian Wise
Special to CNN

 

Editor's note: Brian Wise is executive director of Military Families United, a national advocacy organization for military families based in Washington. A former television producer, he served as director of media relations for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Brian Wise says President Obama's decision to fight release of prisoner photos saved the lives of U.S. troops.

 

(CNN) -- The president's decision last week to fight the release of dozens of photographs depicting the alleged abuse of prisoners in detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq was more than just a political decision. It was a decision that saved lives.
By fighting the release, President Obama put the safety of our troops before the demands of an activist agenda, and Americans should thank him for it.
There is no doubt that the needless release of those photos would have cost American lives. When photos surfaced of the shocking abuse at Abu Ghraib in April 2004, violence dramatically spiked in Iraq. In the 10 days following the release of the photos, nearly 40 American soldiers were killed.
American casualties doubled the next month and kept climbing throughout the following year as foreign fighters and terrorists flooded Iraq. The pictures were used on a daily basis to stoke the fire of hatred of America across the Middle East.
They were used as propaganda by terrorists and even members of the media to drive a message that the U.S. government was at best incompetent and at worst not much better than the extremists we were fighting.
The Abu Ghraib photos also hindered our mission in Iraq. Many Iraqis who were aiding American troops no longer viewed our troops as allies but as dangerous criminals. A bond of trust was broken that set the mission back years.

Don't Miss

• Special Report: Torture investigation
• Commentary: Let's get out truth about detainee photos
• Commentary: Photos key to exposing abuse
• In Depth: Commentaries

The Iraqi people did not view the Abu Ghraib photos as isolated incidents but methods that reminded them of the horror of the former regime. Of course, none of what was done at Abu Ghraib or in Afghanistan approached the vile mutilations of Saddam Hussein's Red Rooms and torture chambers or the Taliban's dismemberments and public stoning.
The terrible acts at Abu Ghraib were isolated incidents conducted by a small number of individuals who were quickly identified and prosecuted for their crimes.
If a new set of photos were to be released, we would be punishing the thousands of brave and innocent troops for the crimes of a few.
As American troops increase their presence in Afghanistan our service members must be able to cultivate relationships with the citizens of that country without those horrific images creating an environment of distrust and anger. As we begin leaving Iraq in the hands of Iraqi forces, we must ensure that the progress that the surge has made is not undone because of a political stunt intended to embarrass the previous administration.
What Americans need to appreciate is that there is a very real, active process within the Department of Defense that on an ongoing basis investigates and punishes members of the military who break the law.
What is important here is that the Pentagon has the photos and is using them as evidence in cases involving soldiers accused of abuse. Publicly releasing the photos will in no way aid the prosecution of these cases. It would be done only to satisfy some unfounded contention by conspiracy theorists that the government is just ignoring the problem.
Abuse cannot and should not be swept under the rug. It wasn't in Abu Ghraib and will not be now. Releasing these photographs would serve no purpose other than emboldening al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations by providing new tools for their recruitment of future jihadists. The president has committed to our troops that he will not let this disclosure hinder our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and risk their lives.
A photo can depict reality, or it can deceptively shape perceptions. America is safer today because these photos are not public and because the president chose to stand up for our troops instead of catering to the whims of the ACLU. America's military families thank Obama for standing up for the interests and safety of our brave men and women in uniform.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Brian Wise.

The Comments below are from onee of "Obama in the White House" readers
 BlackBerry  wrote:

May 23, 2009 7:51 AM   

Hi James, I'd like to comment here as usual. I think that what Brian Wise suggested is a pathetic excuse. That's just self-righteous and naive way of thinking; that by holding some photographed tortures actions, some lives can be spared. And don't make me start on his pathetic comparison of torture methods by Al-Qaeda and Saddam's with that of American "individuals". It is as if he wants to say that American ways of torture is more humane. "Well, if its indeed humane, it won't entitled 'torture', mister!" A torture is a torture. Speaking of pathetic comparison, what do American feels if one of them mourn for his/her beloved that died in Iraq when out of the blue, an Iraqi said, matter of factly, "Well you just lost one, I lost MANY?" See? that's how pathetic it was. Reading that article makes me sick. If what Brian Wise had in mind can represented the whole American, I will certainly ask "What do American really want honestly?" If they don't want their citizen get killed, well, don't engaged in a war. If they don't want their troops to die, "Well, what are you waiting for, Get out of there!" You reap what you sow.  THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT

A HIGHLY LOGICAL APPROACH

 By Jon Meacham | NEWSWEEK

Published May 16, 2009

From the magazine issue dated May 25, 2009

                                                                                      What He's Learned

                                                     A Conversation with Barack Obama

In a 30-minute interview aboard Air Force One en route from Washington to Phoenix last Wednesday, President Obama talked with NEWSWEEK's Jon Meacham about Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Dick Cheney—and Star Trek. Edited excerpts:

Meacham: The theme here is what you've learned. What's the hardest thing you've had to do?
The President: Order 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. There is a sobriety that comes with a decision like that because you have to expect that some of those young men and women are going to be harmed in the theater of war. And making sure that you have thought through every angle and have put together the best possible strategy, but still understanding that in a situation like Afghanistan the task is extraordinarily difficult and there are no guarantees, that makes it a very complicated and difficult decision.

Can anything get you ready to be a war president?
Well, I think that it certainly helps to know the broader strategic issues involved. I think that's more important than understanding the tactics involved because there are just some extraordinary commanders on the ground and a lot of good advisers who I have a lot of confidence in, but the president has to make a decision: will the application of military force in this circumstance meet the broader national-security goals of the United States? And you can't do that without understanding, let's say in Afghanistan, how that connects to Pakistan and what the nature of the insurgency there is, and what the history of the Soviet invasion was. So having some context, I think, is critical.

The other thing that's critical, I think, is having spent a couple of years on the campaign trail and then a number of years as a senator, meeting with young men and women who've served, and their families, and the families of soldiers who never came back, and knowing the price that's being paid by those who you're sending.
Quantcast

Can you talk about how you reached the surge decision?
I think the starting point was a recognition that the existing trajectory was not working, that the Taliban had made advances, that our presence in Afghanistan was declining in popularity, that the instability along the border region was destabilizing Pakistan as well. So that was the starting point of the decision.

We then embarked on a strategic review that involved every aspect of our government's involvement—Defense, State Department, intelligence operations, aid operations. Once that strategic review had been completed, then I sat in a room with the principals and argued about it, and listened to various perspectives, saw a range of options in terms of how we could move forward; asked them to go back and rework their numbers and reconsider certain positions based on the fact that some of the questions I asked could not be answered. And when I finally felt that every approach—every possible approach—had been aired, that all the questions had either been answered or were unanswerable, at that point I had to make a decision and I did.

Was the change-in-command decision that was made this week [Gen. David McKiernan was relieved as commander of the forces in afghanistan] part of the ongoing reaction to facts on the ground?
That is, I think, a reflection of a broader recognition that we have to apply some fresh eyes to the problem. General McKiernan has done an outstanding job; he's an outstanding military commander and has served his country with great distinction. But I have an obligation to make certain that we are giving ourselves the best possible opportunity to succeed, and at this moment there was a strong recommendation from the secretary as well as [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Chairman [Adm. Mike] Mullen that the team that we're now putting in place is best equipped to succeed.

Are you open to sending more troops in if this particular number can't make the progress you need to make?
I think it's premature to talk about additional troops. My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops. The Soviets tried that; it didn't work out too well for them. The British tried it; it didn't work. We have to see our military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize security in the country, allow national elections to take place in Afghanistan and then provide the space for the vital development work that's needed so that a tolerant and open, democratically elected government is considered far more legitimate than a Taliban alternative. And the military component is critical to accomplishing that goal, but it is not a sufficient element by itself.

Moving to Pakistan, would you be willing to keep the option alive to have American troops secure those nuclear weapons if the country gets less stable?
I don't want to engage in hypotheticals around Pakistan, other than to say we have confidence that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe; that the Pakistani military is equipped to prevent extremists from taking over those arsenals. As commander in chief, I have to consider all options, but I think that Pakistan's sovereignty has to be respected. We are trying to strengthen them as a partner, and one of the encouraging things is, over the last several weeks we've seen a decided shift in the Pakistan Army's recognition that the threat from extremism is a much more immediate and serious one than the threat from India that they've traditionally focused on.

President Obama - Plans to Increase Gas Efficiency in cars and trucks

Watch President Obama talk gas mileage and his plans to increase the mpg standards in gas combustion vehicles.  

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

RNC Chairman Michael Steele To make a Speech Tomorrow

In a preplanned announcement set for tomorrow, RNC chairman Michael Steele will issue a rallying cry to his embattled party in a speech. He plans to tell GOP state leaders that they have to support conservative principles. He appears to be a day late and a dollar short, as the Republican party lags far behind with support of the American people. It definitely will be interesting to hear, as the last time he made a major speech to support his party was nothing short of a disaster and it appeared at the time that he pushed his cause even further back. He now faces a difficult task of keeping the Republican party united as different political factions now maneuver to try and influence what political direction the GOP should head.


He has a tough headwind to face here, as some key republican figures have already deserted the party, such as Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter who changed sides and became a Democrat, as he recognized that his own political views were no longer in line with the Republican party. He also knew that he would have a tough fight to gain re-election as a Republican. The facts are that other key Republicans may follow if people like the Republican chairman Michael Steele cannot convince his party to unite, and fight for their common cause.

The Republican party to date has never been so much in shambles, and it is hard to decide now if anyone could ever bring the party back to a respectable level to compete with the Democratic party. It may become extinct if the Republican principles are not grasped by the conservative movement once again.

Gasoline starts to spike again - Obama set to announce tougher fuel economy regulations

Just when you thought that the price of gasoline was getting down to a respectable level again, the prices started spiking up 25 cents in just 3 weeks. But according to a survey, it appears that the spike will not continue to rise. This is not the right time for price hikes, and the trend most certainly will end. It is a noted fact that this time last year the price of gasoline was soaring at approximately $3.80. The latest survey shows the price of gasoline the cheapest at $1.99 per gallon, and the most expensive in Chicago at $2.63. So it is a little tough right now for the consumers of gasoline, and most of the people out there have no choice.
But now the government has decided to announce on Tuesday to propose stricter fuel economy standards on automakers in an effort to cut down on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. At the present time the economy standards are set at 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg for trucks. That average will change to 39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for trucks. It is an accelerated plan that was passed by congress at the end of 2007, so the automakers knew it was coming, but now will have to happen at least 4 years earlier. The fuel economy increase will gradually begin in 2012.
This may be bad news to the oil companies. Now the Obama administration predicts that the changes will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil by 2016. That is about 3 months of oil consumption. The flip end will be that the cost of an automobile should rise on the average of $600 to the cost of a car. That is above what has already been added, $700 to change the fuel economy rules that have already been enacted by the government. The bottom line is that the consumers will be able to make up for the cost in the gas by the amount they will save.
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), is responsible for formulating the figures of fuel economy and this information is reflected on new car window stickers. They are also responsible for regulating exhaust emissions.
Announcements by President Obama regarding these changes are set to take place in the Rose Garden at the White House tomorrow at 12:15PM.

Groups seek disbarment for Bush's top lawyers

As reported by CNN, today a coalition of progressive groups are now seeking the disbarment of 12 Bush administration top lawyers. Why? Because they need to be accountable for their actions, as an attorney for the coalition says "It is time to hold these lawyers accountable for violating their legal oath," as was presented in a legal statement. "Just as the bar would suspend an attorney who advised a police officer to torture and brutalize a detained immigrant or criminal defendant, the bar must suspend these attorneys for advocating and causing the torture of war detainees. The disciplinary boards that hear these complaints must act or they will be seen as complicit in the use of torture."

  So who are these lawyers? Here are theier names....

David Addinton - was chief of staff (2001-2005) and former legal counsel to former Vice President Dick Cheney (2005-2009).^[1] During 21 years of federal service, Addington has worked at the CIA, the Reagan White House, the Department of Defense, four congressional committees, and the Cheney Office of the Vice President.

John Ashcroft - is an American politician who was the 79th United States Attorney General. He served during the first term of President George W. Bush from 2001 until 2005. Ashcroft was previously the Governor of Missouri (1985–1993) and a U.S. Senator from Missouri (1995–2001).

Stephen Bradbury - nominated June 23, 2005, by President George W. Bush to be an Assistant Attorney General (Office of Legal Counsel) at the Department of Justice. His nomination^[1] was sent to the U.S. Senate on June 23, 2005. Bradbury replaced^[2] Jack Landman Goldsmith, who resigned.

Jay Bybee - while serving as Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, approved of "enhanced interrogation techniques" through the legal memoranda he authored. This memo has been the source of some controversy and calls for his impeachment.

Michael Chertoff - was the 2nd United States Secretary of Homeland Security, under George W. Bush, and co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Douglas Feith - served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for United States President George W. Bush from July 2001 until August 2005. His official responsibilities included the formulation of defense planning guidance and forces policy, United States Department of Defense (DoD) relations with foreign countries, and DoD's role in U.S. Government interagency policymaking.

Alice Fisher - appointed by President George W. Bush in a recess appointment August 31, 2005, as Assistant Attorney General to head the Criminal Division in the United States Department of Justice.

Timothy Flanigan - President George W. Bush nominated him as Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the #2 position in the Department of Justice. On October 7, 2005, his name was withdrawn from consideration. ^[1] He was replaced by Paul McNulty.

Alberto Gonzales - was the 80th Attorney General of the United States. Gonzales was appointed to the post in February 2005 by President George W. Bush.

William Haynes II - an American lawyer, and former General Counsel of the United States Department of Defense during president George W. Bush's administration. Haynes resigned as General Counsel in February 2008. From 2003 until 2007, he was a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Michael Mukasey - a lawyer and former judge who served as the 81st Attorney General of the United States. Mukasey, an American lawyer, was appointed following the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. Mukasey also served for 18 years as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, six of those years as Chief Judge.

John Yoo - is an American attorney and former official in the U.S. Department of Justice.

 Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey served as attorney general in former President George W. Bush's administration. Chertoff served as homeland security secretary.
The complaints, filed with the bars in California, the District of Columbia, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, also seek other forms of disciplinary action in addition to disbarment.
It appears that there is no call for criminal prosecution, but the high focus centers around Bradbury, Bybee and Yoo. These three men held former Office of legal Counsel, and were the top officials who provided the legal guidance, including the permissible interrogation procedures for the CIA and other branches of government. Bybee and Yoo wrote the permissible interrogation procedures that were used directly in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, which allowed very harsh interrogation techniques which were eventually withdrawn. One of the techniques used extensively, especially directly after 9/11 was the use of waterboarding, a procedure that the prior administration Vice-President Dick Cheney condoned.
This procedure can be the beginning or the end of the investigation process concerning torture that the prior administration is being accused of. If the lawyers involved in the prior administrations acts of mishandling prisoners do not receive legal reprimands, and in some cases the loss of their license to practice law, then most likely President Bush will get out of any further possible charges that may come against him.
The aura of President Obama seems to preclude that he is interested in finding out all the truths of the past, but not at the expense of taking the eyes and ears of the media and public from what he is actually doing presently in his administration. I do not feel that President Obama would consider to pursue further hearings or proceedings against his predecessor President George Bush, but it is my opinion if he does so, a good percentage of his popularity will diminish. So President Obama is again walking a fine line here. But the fact of the matter is that eventually if Obama does not persue finding out the historical facts centered around these attorneys, then eventually the media and press will come up with information, and then the posibility exists that President Obama may be charged for withholding evidence that he may have known about in an attempt to quiet things down.
Last week, President Obama disallowed the publishing of dozens and dozens of torture pictures and maybe some videos. Many take it as President Obama's first mistake as President of the United States. He may just be making his 2nd biggest mistake in office in just as little as 2 weeks.