As you may know, for some time now here at Deceiver we’ve been following the war of words between Past Obama and Present Obama. It seems like whenever Present Obama says something, it turns out that at some point, Past Obama said something to screw it all up. They’re like archenemies.
For example, here’s Past Obama speaking at CIA HQ on April 20, 2009:
I have fought to protect the integrity of classified information in the past, and I will do so in the future. And there is nothing more important than protecting the identities of CIA officers. So I need everybody to be clear: we will protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your missions. I will be as vigorous in protecting you as you are vigorous in protecting the American people.
Which is of course why this is now happening:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has named a veteran federal prosecutor, John Durham, to examine nearly a dozen abuse cases in which detainees were held by the Central Intelligence Agency. The Justice Department’s ethics office, in a report released on Monday, recommended reopening the cases, reversing the Bush administration and potentially exposing C.I.A. workers to prosecution for their treatment of detainees.
Unless Holder has gone off the reservation somehow, presumably he’s acting with the consent and approval of Present Obama.
And it only makes sense, really. What better way to protect the identities and security of CIA officers than to splash their names all over the front pages of every newspaper in the country? What better way to encourage them to perform their duties to the best of their abilities than to make them second-guess themselves and look over their shoulders at every turn? What better way to protect America than to hold the threat of prosecution over the heads of our protectors?
What better way to commemorate 8 years since the last terrorist attack on American soil than to punish those who’ve prevented another one?
Related posts:
- Past Obama Continues to Vex and Bedevil Present Obama As if Present Obama doesn’t have enough to worry about...
- Present Obama Suffers Another Outlandish Attack from Past Obama During the neverending 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Barack Hussein Obama...
- Once Again, Past Obama Attacks Present Obama Hey, remember about six months ago, when President Obama told...
- Once Again, Past Obama at Odds with Present Obama During appearances last week in Arizona and New Mexico, President...
- Clash of the Tit(an)s Pretty much every moral authority on Earth has weighed in...
Think Present Obama will make the ACLU stop stalking current CIA operatives? They are following and photographing CIA operatives, then showing the pics to “suspected” terrorists “in case” they were interrogators. Never mind that deliberately exposing an undercover agent is illegal, especially to ENEMIES. Or at lease it was when Valerie Plame worked there. Amazing how times have changed. Read all about it at Michelle Malkin’s site.
Look at the terrorist handbooks that have been confiscated. They all say to claim abuse by interrogators. The sad thing is, there are people out there who believe it, and think that being yelled at is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
When Ronald Wilson Reagan was in the WH, it was said that the Anti-Christ was residing there.
I do believe that statement was 19 years to early.
And now they want to know why it is so hard to recruit new members? Yeah, um, okay. My husband turned down a job with them because of this crap. This will only weaken our country and our country’s security. 9/11 would be minor compared to the next big event.
Obama and his administration: Doing the work that patriotic Americans won’t do.
Its quite obvious Obama has a long term goal of dismantling the CIA as a part of his 2009 World Appeasement Campaign.
“The CIA is why the world hates us”, Obama thinks “if I can close them down, it will be my legacy!”
1. January 5, 2009 Appointment of Leon Panetta as CIA Director. Law enforcement or intelligence community experience? None
2. February 19, 2009 News reports show satellite photos of CIA predator drones in Pakistan as early as 2006.
3. March 29, 2009 News reports maintain CIA interrogation methods had absolutely no role in proventing terrorism
4. April 24, 2009 Obama makes statement that he will release all detainee abuse photos, triggering a mass backlash from the military.
5. May 14, 2009 Head dragon lady Nancy “Botox” Pelosi’s makes some very public accusations that the CIA routinely lied to Congress
6. June 4, 2009 Obama in his “Lets all hold hands together” speech to an Islamic audience in Cairo, acknowleged “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government”, a rare, public admission of the CIA’s responsibility for the 1953 Iranian coup, not previously acknowleged by the US.
7. July 10, 2009. CIA Director Leon Panetta’s writes letter to Congress alleging CIA had misled congress many times.
8. August 20, 2009. News reports maintain the CIA had hired Blackwater for “secret assassination tasks” of Al Qaeda leaders.
Did I miss the memo? Is August International Be kind to a Terrorist month or something?
First Obama wishes them all Happy Ramadan and could he follow Scotland’s lead and let all the terrorists go on compassionate grounds? Then charge the CIA as terrorists and put them in jail.
These poor misdirected terrorists,they will see the beat down given to the bad CIA and go straight. Riiiight. Can you all say dhimmitude?
Joy.
Now that the CIA will feel the need to Mirandize every single terrorist they will catch, I wonder how efficient their field operatives will become.
I guess we will know the next time a large scale terrorist attack will strike the United-States…
Just as the CIA has “misled” congress, so were the American people by Obama. Let us dismantle his “legacy” before any more damage is done to the country. Please votre for anyone else but Obama next time round.
Ln, I never voted for him the first time. Not my fault and come hell or high water, we will rise above this egotistical man. Mark my words, it is a matter of when, not if when we are attacked and it will be huge. We are being laughed at right now by the terrorists. We are at war, this is not a “man made disaster” as Obama has revised it to be. It is terrorism, pure and simple
Audio flashback : CIA probe was always part of the Obama agenda
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/aug/25/audio-flashback-cia-investigations-was-always-part/
rumour over at redstate.com is that Panetta has resigned. If it is true it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.
No doubt Ln.
Remember when Obama told us last week that Obamacare would only cover US citizens?
That’s not what Congress is saying now.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-wont-cover-illegal-immigrants–55021087.html
I was field intelligence when I was in, so I have a bit of experience in these matters, and if you wanted to know why I (and a lot of people I know) refused to re-up, it was because we saw this kind of crap coming. At this point, I’d rather sign on with Blackwater than the CIA – if I got into legal trouble at least Blackwater would go to bat for me instead of treating me as a sacrificial lamb, which is SOP for our intelligence community these days.
A few things that I feel need to be pointed out though, simply because a lot of civilians don’t know and this administration is obviously not going to clear it up for them:
1. AllyKat mentioned the Geneva Convention, which the ACLU says we violate regularly. Unfortunately that argument is BS from the very beginning for one very important reason – the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists or insurgents. They are not uniformed members of a nation’s armed services. By definition they are criminals, not soldiers. For instance, in World War II when German infiltrators dressed in Allied uniforms or civilian clothes during the Battle of the Bulge, they were found to no longer fall within the protections of the Geneva Convention. For all intents and purposes they were considered spies or terrorists, and it was perfectly legal to shoot them (even if they surrendered) without a court marshal. If you fail to identify yourself as a legal combatant by virtue of some form of identifying uniform, you are not a soldier and thus have no rights according to international law.
2. I hate to say it, but the terrorists and the public should expect a certain amount of overkill in these situations. I’m not excusing excesses, and anyone violating the orders of their superior during interrogation should be prosecuted, I’m just saying it should be expected. Remember that the people doing the interrogations are either soldiers or government agents, who have dealt with these people for a long time and know exactly what they’re capable of. When they catch our guys, they torture them for days before beheading them on camera and posting it on freaking Youtube. Sometimes it’s a bit hard to feel guilty for blaring Barney music (which has been cited as TORTURE mind you) and dumping water on them when it might very well save thousands of innocent lives.
Bottom line, if our enemies are so worried about the Geneva Convention, perhaps they should start abiding by even a single portion of it.
This is another page straight out of the Jimmy Carter Play Book. He started doing all of this in the 70’s and the moment we had a crisis and he scrambled for information from the security agencies they had nothing for him. So he turned to our “Allies” over seas and they basically gave him the finger and told him to they had nothing for him. He brokered a peace treaty with the arabs and Israelis and it helped to found the PLO. The Soviets Invaded Afghanistan, and the Iranians seized American hostages from our Embassy that Carter cut off funding to the Shah of Iran. How did Carter react to all these incidents?? He did nothing but talk.
Scott F. – you and my husband are cut of the same cloth. I am kind of wishing now he would have taken the job with Blackwater. They defend their guys. Now we are facing an upcoming deployment under a CinC who could care less about the men and women serving.
Pfftttt.
Let’s just have the CIA falsify some medical records which state the Obastard maybe kinda might be sorta almost dying of pancreatic cancer.
Then we can be rid of the damned man, and I won’t have to boycott haggis anymore.
better yet. Produce the birth certificate indicating he was born in Kenya. that would get rid of him all together. Black ops is there for a reason
Scott makes a good point about field interogatoins and the Geneva Conventions. In my line of work (now and when I was active duty) there is a saying: ICBM, Thermonuclear Protection.
While I DO NOT advocate the use of nukes, sure wish the current “Commander in Chief” had the balls and fortitude to use them if they were ever required.
Minnow, you eat haggis?!?!?!?!?? You’re braver than I am!
Scott F., thanks for the clarifications on the Geneva Convention. I know some former Agency guys who were operatives and interrogators in the 90s and early 00s and their professionalism is hard to fault. I subscribe to Christ’s dictum to turn the other cheek, but it must be really hard to do that when you know the all person facing you wants to do is kill you and as many other ‘infidels’ as possible.
Aleric, I sincerely hope we’re not in for four years of Jimmy Carter, part deux.
Jenn, I’ve seen other rumors on blogs and news outlets of Panetta’s pending resignation, but no confirmation just yet. Perhaps he’s waiting ’til after Obama’s vacation.
AllyKat, I am SO GLAD you brought up Plame. She and that joke of a husband of hers did everything they could to try and bring down a Presidency, and now the President is doing exactly what they accused Bush, Cheney, et al, of doing.
America absolutely cannot afford a second term for this cocky loser; it’s doubtful we’ll survive one term.
Aleric – uh oh… shades of Jimmy Carter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/25/barack-obama-middle-east-peace
Get’yer Scott F. merchandise, right here! *waves signs*
*also covers self in Scott F. temporary tattoos*
….I should never drink tequila and check out Deceiver…but what’s done is done.
It’s just more Obamlogic………………of which we are clueless and will never understand because it is so damn convoluted.
As a famous comedian once said, “I don’t know why you’re so upset with Jimmy Carter. He didn’t do anything….”
*head to desk*
Good catch, Scott. I actually DO know about the Geneva Convention not being applicable to terrorists (Dad’s a former Army JAG), so that wasn’t my best snark. What I meant to express was that people who get all freaked out about interrogation techniques often complain about even the “softest” methods: sleep deprivation, Christina Aguilera music (though some might argue that is a hard-core method), bright lights, etc. Not to advocate actual beatings and permanent harm, but interrogations aren’t supposed to be nice. Does anyone REALLY think that if we just ask nicely enough, bin Laden is going to give us heads up on the next target?
Will the black gentleman from Chicago/Hawaii/Kenya/Fantasyland please put his hand down?
Interesting to note that Holder and Obama seem to think that this is an appropriate use of prosecutorial resources, but when armed and uniformed Black Panthers intimidate voters at a polling place? Eh, not so much.
I believe Barry’s take on this and many other issues is: “I won.”
I forgot about that one, turkeyguy. Thanks for bringing up old laughs.
just read that Holder has dropped the case against Bill Richardson. So slime like Richardson and black panther thugs get a pass but the CIA doing it’s job is prosecutable.
And apparently, Bill Richardson is all squeaky clean too. He sparkles like the morning sun on a fresh rain puddle. Get a whiff of all that minty freshness?
Methinks they’re grooming him for when the Heimlich fails to remove the foot from Biden’s trachea.
Jinks jenn, buy me a coke…
in the wake of tom ridge coming forward and saying that he was asked to raise the terror threat level on the eve of the 2004 election, why do you say the past administration kept us safe? how does arbitrarily raising the color coded terror alert system keep us safe?
and in defense of the cia operatives, they were following their orders.
obama isn’t trying to out as many cia agents as he can. eric holder is going after those higher up, whomever gave them the orders in the first place.
if you do support bush and cheney, wouldn’t you want a probe to clear them? it would get the pesky nytimes to stop saying that ‘the bush administration disregarded the law on numerous occasions.’
keep picking on daschle and pelosi and peta. ps. where’s the michael steele hypocrisy updates?
Well, now that he isn’t a threat to the Chosen One…
I’m so glad that voter intimidation is okay again! I meant, precedent now says that its okay to hang out at polling places and act in a threatening manner, so all the freaky Klansmen can come out and pretend that the Civil Rights Movement never happened. Is that really what the administration wants to allow?
@deceiver reader: tips@deceiver.com.
And yes, you’re right. I’m SURE the NYT would be absolutely open and forthcoming, not to mention totally objective, about anything that would exonerate Bush and/or Cheney. Good grief, if they had thought nobody was paying attention, they’d have tried to assassinate Bush themselves.
And speaking of totally objective media… ABC will not air an ad critical of Obama’s health insurance reform. “The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue,” spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. “Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News.”
.
Pretty hypocritical of the network that aired an Obama propoganda show on heatlh care reform.
Minnow – cokes on the way
Jenn, I heard that today as well. CBS may if they change some fo the language. What is rather funny is that ABC did a media love night with Obama allowing him to speak for a long time of this very topic.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/27/abc-nbc-refuse-air-advertisement-critical-obamas-health-care-plan/
Wait, they’ll sell mud-slinging ads from special interest groups advocating for an issue and the candidate who supports said issue before elections, but they won’t sell ads about an issue when there isn’t an election attached? What moron in PR thought THAT was going to be believable?
Or more believeable – that they are an unbiased network?
Factually wrong.
Promotional material written by Ridge’s publisher ran on the publishing house’s website. http://us.macmillan.com/thetestofourtimes
In it, the publisher promises that the book will elaborate on How the DHS was pressured to connect homeland security to the international “war on terror”. The PUBLISHER wrote this summary, NOT Ridge.
Later, a book quote was leaked saying Ridge “wondered” if there was a connection between raising the threat level and the upcomimg Kerry v Bush election. Oddly, Ridge doesn’t equally “wonder” if the threat level increase had anything to do with the release of the Bin Laden tape.
When does “wonder” equate with White House pressure? Ridge reveals no supporting evidence for his wonderment or the pressures of it.
And despite said wonderment, neither Ridge nor the White House held sole ability to raise or lower the threat level. The DHS can make a recommendation but the NSC held the most sway in the Bush White House (remember that stygian trio of Cheney, Rummy, and Powell?).
The NSC is a body ENTIRELY appointed by the president. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc/
NSC members serve at the president’s pleasure and are out on their asses after their administration looses an election. Therefore, the NSC has the most to gain by keeping Bush in office; they would be naturally inclined to up Bush’s chances by upping the threat level. And yet the level was not raised above orange, set earlier that summer. So much for politics playing a part.
Some with advance copies of the Ridge book also state that Ridge in the very same book expressly says the decision was apolitical:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/21/the-politics-of-the-politics-o
Additionally, Ridge himself has stated over the years in interviews that threat levels were not politically charged:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/20/color-coded-con-job/
This is either a case of the publisher doing his job by stirring up book enthusiasm or it’s a case of Present Tom Ridge having a girly-girl slap fight with Past Tom Ridge.
Both options are entertaining but you’re unlikely to find concrete truth at either event.
Damn it, I hate it when I screw up the quote.
The Publisher’s quote should read: How Ridge effectively thwarted a plan to raise the national security alert just before the 2004 Election
That has more relevance than the bit I cited about DHS & War on Terror.
Funny, I thought only superheros got to go around “thwarting” things, which is probably what I was thinking when I grabbed the pressure quote instead of the thwart one.
Hand me the dunce cap and I’ll go sit in the corner for it.
I like American Dad!’s take oon the terror level color system – “….which means that something might happen somewhere at some time so LOOK SHARP!”