Tuesday, April 21, 2009

GOP to Obama: Stop Apologizing for the U.S.

I generally try to avoid attacking President Obama on this blog because this blog isn't about Obama and because it may potentially turn-off any non-conservative readers that I may have, diminishing my goal of presenting the conservative side of things to liberals. The actions that President Obama has taken over the last few days has made this very difficult for me and I really have to President Obama's patriotism to question. I am not saying that President Obama does not love this country and I am not saying that he is not patriotic, but I will say that he does not exemplify the degree of patriotism that I would like the President of this country to have. This point has been evident since the campaign in the 'little' things, like Obama refusing to wear a flag lapel, Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and Obama's associations with known domestic terrorists. Now President Obama has taken it upon himself to represent America as an arrogant country and apologize to the world for all of our 'mistakes'. GOP-take a stand and demand that President Obama stop weakening our country with apologies and stop misrepresenting us as arrogant and as the source of all of the world's problems. At the same time, President Obama's administration has released CIA memos that significantly weaken the country's defenses and the memos that were released only present one side of the torture story. The memos portray the fact that the Bush Administration allowed torture to take place contrary to the Geneva Convention. The administration on the other hand conveniently failed to release memos that prove that the harsh interrogation tactics prevented a 9/11 magnitude attack in L.A., and the memos also leave out the fact that a bi-partisan committee of Congress was aware of the interrogation techniques and raised no objections as described in the Washington Post . Members of the Committee included both Democrats and Republicans, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. There is strong evidence to suggest, and former CIA Chief Hayden suggests that the release of the 'torture' memos has already been utilized by Al Qaeda to recruit new members, members whose main goals are to bring destruction to America. Anyone who is willing to release memos in a political move to discredit the former Administration and Party with a total disregard to the security threat that it may pose does not love the United States as much as a president should in my opinion. Now, in a huge flip-flop of opinions, President Obama has indicated that he is open to the prosecution of Bush Administration officials who approved the harsh interrogation methods, as seen on MSNBC today. This is an unprecedented move that further diminishes the countries safety and will set a precedent for future administrations that they cannot be tough on terrorism without the threat of prosecution. This week has been tough on Republicans because we have seen our country reduced to apologies, we have seen our President accept the gift of a book that slanders the United States, and worst yet, we have seen our security take a severe blow. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney was on Hannity last night and offers his thoughts on President Obama's apology tour, check it out below.


  1. Let's simplify the torture issue.

    I would ask a liberal parent, in the event their child was abducted and the authorities had an individual in custody that knew where their child was being held and by whom, would the parent want the authorities to do whatever was necessary to extract the information?

    Simple, right?

  2. " I am not saying that President Obama does not love this country and I am not saying that he is not patriotic "

    Ok..._I'm_ saying it...!

  3. Obama should not be apologizing, unless the United States gets apologize in return. Where is North Korea’s apology for threatening our lives? Where is Chavez’s apology for calling our ex- president the Devil? Where is France’s apology in selling military equipment to our enemies in Afghanistan in the early years of the war?

    On the issue of torture, these terrorist should not even be on the Geneva Convention. They do not represent a country and they do not wear a uniform that represent that country. The supreme courts decision on this issue is based on ideology, not on justification on the actual requirements of the document.

    On the issue of prosecuting Bush officials, Obama is also making sure that no lawyer is going to want to work in any administration due to these threats of prosecution. No lawyer is going to do any legal action in an administration, if there is a possible threat of the next administration going to prosecute them over those legal actions.

  4. >>On the issue of prosecuting Bush officials, Obama is also making sure that no lawyer is going to want to work in any administration due to these threats of prosecution.>>

    You might find this article worth reading...


  5. We have nothing to apologize for. Period.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Sorry Nathan. I had to remove my post. Open political views while job hunting is sadly a no-no in this economy in my field.

  8. >>Open political views while job hunting is sadly a no-no in this economy in my field.>>

    That's a pretty damning statement, don't you think? (of your field, whatever it is)

  9. Below I cite the Washington Post on Congressional support of the Bush administration's torture policy. Initially 4 top Congressional officials--including Pelosi-- were notified that this technique was being used--but they were not provided legal counsel and were admonished to guard secrecy. When the technique's use became more widely known, controversy emerged. Here's the Post on waterboarding history:

    "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history's worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War.

    In general, the technique involves strapping a prisoner to a board or other flat surface, and then raising his feet above the level of his head. A cloth is then placed over the subject's mouth and nose, and water is poured over his face to make the prisoner believe he is drowning."

    I fail to understand why anyone would object to Obama's returning US policy to sanity and resetting our moral compass.

  10. Like many others have stated, Obama is just another Jimmy Carter, only in a slightly more dangerous world. Jimmy opened the door for terrorist agression by proving he wouldn't DO anything about it. Clinton continued the tradition, and Obama will cement it home, but hopefully not with lots of homeland destruction and loss of life.
    I was in High School when Jimmy was president, and I remember thinking we should go get the hostages. Just show up with the US Marines.

  11. >>I fail to understand why anyone would object to Obama's returning US policy to sanity and resetting our moral compass.>>

    I suspect it has something to do with those 200 or so people who jumped from the twin towers to land on the pavement beneath.

    I'd be more than happy to offer any prisoners who have information that might stop another such attack the option of a wall of fire or a window 100+ stories up instead of waterboarding...

  12. have any of you considered the possibility that the victim of torture may be innocent? how would you feel, "anonymous," if your child were kidnapped by government officials and tortured to extract information on some domestic terrorist in his neighborhood that he had no affiliation with beyond a beer party?

    have you considered the fact that someone under torture is going to tell you whatever the hell you want to hear to get you to leave him alone? how can you believe that information gotten this way has any validity whatsoever?

    forget the liberal "rights-to-the-criminal" position and consider common sense.

  13. >>...how would you feel, "anonymous," if your child were kidnapped by government officials...>>

    You mean...kidnapped off a battle field???

    Oh my. That would be terrible indeed.

  14. do you really think that each detainee has been taken off the battlefield? i don't.
    perhaps we should find a list of detainees and investigate. oh wait.
    there's no way in hell such a thing would be released...

    we've heard about gtmo. surely that's the only torture facility being used, huh. surely it's all on the level. surely it could never be used under any other circumstances than with accurate information pertaining to "national security." and surely the only circumstances of "national security" would be diverting 9/11-type catastrophes.

    i always hear conservatives say, "legalize gay marriage and what's next? interspecies marriage? interfamilial marriage?"
    why can you not see the slippery slope in the case of torture?--who determines what is considered a "national security issue" and therefore necessary torture? and who determines the limits of torture? how can someone be so hung up on the ridiculous notion of the no-good that gay marriage will surely lead to and not on issues of torture?

    a recent poll found that people who described themselves as regular churchgoers were more likely to advocate torture. evangelicals, the most likely. what a joke. when did christ ever advocate torture?