Thursday, September 24, 2009


Bush's Third Term

We need to update that old joke: "People warned me that if I voted for McCain, we'd get another four years of Bush policies. They were right!"

Glenn Greenwald explains:
[W]hen it comes to uprooting ("changing") the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and civil liberties...the Obama administration has proven rather conclusively that tiny and cosmetic adjustments are the most it is willing to do. They love announcing new policies that cast the appearance of change but which have no effect whatsoever on presidential powers. With great fanfare, they announced the closing of CIA black sites -- at a time when none was operating. They trumpeted the President's order that no interrogation tactics outside of the Army Field Manual could be used -- at a time when approval for such tactics had been withdrawn. They repudiated the most extreme elements of the Bush/Addington/Yoo "inherent power" theories -- while maintaining alternative justifications to enable the same exact policies to proceed exactly as is. They flamboyantly touted the closing of Guantanamo -- while aggressively defending the right to abduct people from around the world and then imprison them with no due process at Bagram. Their "changes" exist solely in theory -- which isn't to say that they are all irrelevant, but it is to say that they change nothing in practice: i.e., in reality.

Apologies for being off topic, but in case you are interested:

live blogging at 9am eastern on Ron Paul's House hearing on HR 1207:
I so sincerely hope Thomas Woods gives Alvarez hell.

There is an interesting situation that may very well arise. If the House and Senate each pass their respective Federal Reserve audit bills, that would place Obama in quite a provocative political scenario. On one hand the banks that control him will demand he veto the bill. Furthermore, it would almost appear that he must. However, should Obama veto the bill, one would at the very least surmise that his approval ratings would plummet. So the most pertinent question is simply how would the Obama administration juggle these competing interests.

For me, more than anything I wish to see once and for all if the Federal Reserve, in collusion with other central banks and bullion banks, is actually working to suppress gold and silver prices.
Isn't Greenwald amazing?

People must hide from him when they see him coming down the street. Hell, he's probably owned half of the political hacks in this country.

And Bob, I really love the blog. You follow the basic pattern that should be LAW for bloggers: Frequent and thoughtful updates.

Plus you're funny as hell. Keep up the EXCELLENT work!
This comment has been removed by the author.
^Hi, Glenn!

Seriously though I don't know if I would describe Greenwald as amazing. He says a fair number of things I agree with and he demonstrates a far greater level of consistency than most commentators.

However, you do get stuff like his recent 'Glen Beck and left-right confusion' post.

It has a fair amount of criticism of Beck, most of it fair enough but if he's going to point out Becks change of tune on issues he should also account for why his depiction of the 'tea parties' in this post is so wildly at odds with the one he gave just a few days ago.

He seems to have, at times, a whatever is at hand approach. He wanted to bash up on Douthat and Republicans and so the tea parties were just a series of racist jamborees. A few days later he wants to make a different point and for this purpose the tea parties suddenly become events triggered by and representing a whole range of differing ideas and motivations.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]