Bombing victims' families support decision to try Ghailani in civilian court, spox says

Oh for cryin' out loud! It was the Obama administration that first used this case to try and make a political point. (And they failed quite miserably.)

This is a story from backwards-land.

ON the Ethanol issue

Apparently, as long as the Obama Trolls are given someone to hate, they will support almost any policy.

In the previous post, Greg claimed that ethanol presented a situation in which the Tea Party would be divided from the more traditional Republican interests.

So - the democrats were more than happy to jump on board - and take one side in order to express their hatred at the other Republicans and attempt to drive a split in the Republicans.

Obama has been in favor of ethanol - so that apparenlty means nothing as long as his trolls have someone to hate.

sbj

EXACTLY

Obama and the liberals are the ones who have made the trials political - they are concerned with "making something up" to prove that Bush was doing something wrong - or even against the Constitution.

At this point, Obama should be more concerned with whether his sexual assaults at the airports are a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Obama has been FAR more concerned with the civil rights of terrorist, than the civil rights of Americans.

WHAT DOES JOHNNY PISTOLE SAY ???

Bring me up to speed on your logic on this, sbj. How was it "the Obama administration that first used this case to try and make a political point....?"

pRAG

The entire body of thinking that the trials have to be in civilian court is a part of the liberal agenda to try to make Bush look bad.

The whole purpose is to try to make the case that Bush did something against the Constitution in the war on terror.

The problem that Obama ran into is that he was using flawed logic: in a war, enemy combatents are a separate category.

It is a war.

In a war, different rules apply.

Obama is the one who made the whole thing political.

Same with Gitmo, its a political issue, designed to try to make the case that Bush is doing something wrong.

Funny thing is, after being confronted with the real world, Obama's Middle East policies look alot like Bush's. And where Obama is differing, it does not look like any improvement, but rather a serious misdirection.

.

sbj -- that's kind of an amazing argument. the decision to try him in civilian courts was a policy decision -- one that was made despite the extreme political risks associated with it.

that aside, it's irrelevant. the point is that the spox for the victims' families is directly at odds with the current right wing interpretation of the verdict. that's newsworthy regardless of the motives behind the original decision to pursue a civilian trial

This is amazing! I have a copy of the official, Democratic party, weekly, talking points memo and almost every item written in the WaPo is coming, word for word, from that memo. I always suspected this was so and now I know.

There's anti-gun editorials.

Repeal of DADT is right up there.

Pro-illegal immigration/amnesty....bingo!

Every potential conflict between the TEA PARTY folks and the G.O.P.establishment is there.

It's all here. It's a clarion call to all Democrat, media organizations on what to hammer the Republicans with , this week.

Wow!

Damn, battleground, how'd that get into YOUR hands?!?!? It was supposed to only make it to us bleeding-heart types!

Come now Mr Sargent. Let't take a look at this situation from another perspective.

You, as a personification of the left's POV, have uncovered a single individual who thinks that Obama's approach was OK.

Your and Mr Serwer want us to believe:
(1) She speaks for all this guy's victims.
(2) She has the bona fides to make her particular POV valuable.
(3) Therefore the critics are somehow wrong and this lady is somehow right.

Sorry, I can go along with that. I'll take the thoughts of insightful experienced people like Andy McCarthy over the emotional responses of Edith Bartley. I respect her position in all of this, but ultimately these are political questions, matters of high policy, not therefore to be subject solely to the whims of certain people.

Greg

It does not matter if the spox is for the "victims' families" or not. The person could be a partisan democratic operative for all we know.

As for whether the issue is politicized or not, that has nothing to do with whether it is "newsworthy," those are two different things.

The truth came out in some comments over the weekend: the liberals really "have nothing" since Reagan.

After Reagan, the liberals tried to stake out a new agenda - and these efforts have become a complete failure.

The American People do not want the liberal agenda, and several planks are completely unworkable.

The liberal agenda also has given the democrats reason to believe that "costs don't matter," and somehow deceive themselves into the idea that if they could put the liberal agenda in place, that America would turn against the Conservative ideas.

Well, in many cases, the American People still want the Reagan agenda especially its fiscal aspects - regardless of how they feel on the individual parts of the liberal agenda.

Hence, the liberals end up with a mish-mash of polling which indicate that they get supports for parts of their programs - but never support when the full costs are considered in the polling questions.

The liberals have re-entered a desert of issues - the American People have rejected their agenda, and they will be searching for another set of issues to help them.

The very idea that that liberal agenda may or may not get pushed through during a lame duck session - after a stunning election defeat - is telling of the state of the liberals.

It doesn't matter what the liberals are able to do during the lame duck session - their agenda is dead, the American People do not want it.

So, it's over - no matter what they push through now.

Ironically, if the liberal do end up pushing through anything now, they stand to get the American People even more angry at them.

For the next two years, the health care bill will hang over the liberals, and insure their demise. It will only insure their further defeats.

.

Poor Edith, to think that she is swayed by her emotional whims.

"We certainly don't think that the discussion about which venue to use to bring these people to justice should become a political issue," said Bartley

______________________________

This was exactly a central point in the partisan criticism of Bush before Obama got into office.

Obama led this political charge.

To try to distinquish between that political rhetoric, and somehow now say it is a "policy decision" is a riduculous parsing of something insignificant.

It has always been a partisan political issue for Obama - and one that almost everyone in the country now agrees Obama has been wrong about.

And wrong big time. Obama's liberal agenda is falling by the wayside one-by-one.

"Obama and the liberals are the ones who have made the trials political." Black is white. Up is down. Nothing seems to change in wingnut land.

Politico is now reporting that Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East is a complete disaster -

And in fact Obama is holding back the negotiations.

Quite a turn of events, given all the boasting from the Obama people who claimed that electing a black man would immediately cause peace to break out all over the world.

In fact, that "candyland" idea has been rejected by people all over the globe.

Pretty much nothing Obama has done has yielded progress in anything. Given that health care is going to be repealed, or redone, or whatever - Obama has failed in every major policy effort.

Obama is a complete failure - every major thing he has attempted has either failed, or in the case of health care, caused great damage to himself and his party.

Obama himself is dragging down the Economy - just as the Middle East leaders are now blaming Obama for dragging down the negotiations in the Middle East.

Experience Matters

Qualifications Matter.

Someone explain that to the democrats who still don't get it.

.

but ultimately these are political questions, matters of high policy, not therefore to be subject solely to the whims of certain people.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 22, 2010 2:47 PM

Are they political or policy questions, skip? Or do you not know or see a difference?

And not subject to the whims of certain people? Really skip?

Look at the root of the word politics oh pragmatic one. Politics is the process of developing policy.

Seems to me that you just want a fight. OK fine, I'm your huckleberry.

@Greg: "sbj -- that's kind of an amazing argument. the decision to try him in civilian courts was a policy decision."

Give me a break, Greg. Obama campaigned on this carp! This wasn't a policy decision.

"The Obama administration has made Ghailani its test case to prove that the civilian criminal-justice system works perfectly well in wartime against enemy combatants — to show that we don’t need military commissions or other alternatives specially tailored to address the peculiarities of terrorism cases. The administration figured Ghailani was a safe bet."

They did this to prove a political point. C'mon now!

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248886/embassy-bombing-trial-jeopardy-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

sbj: "Obama campaigned on this carp! This wasn't a policy decision."

Politicians never campaign on policy? Really?

Yeah, you're right skip ... no difference at all in wingnutistan, whatever is good politics MUST be good policy and if it isn't, just make up some hare brained story so it seems that way.

Kinda like this, skip:

What I find especially noteworthy, though, are double-dippers -- those Republicans who endorsed (and in several cases, co-sponsored) legislation to make an individual health care mandate the law of the land, but nevertheless signed onto McConnell's brief declaring an individual health care mandate unconstitutional.

It's quite a motley crew: Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and John Thune (R-S.D.). All seven supported the individual mandate, right up until Democrats agreed with them, at which point they decided their own idea was unconstitutional. (My personal favorite is Grassley, who proclaimed on Fox News, during the fight over Obama's plan, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandate.")

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026759.php

yeah you just want to fight. How nice for you. tough weekend or what? Your team lose? Conjugical rights being denied? Cat got snatched by coyotes?

I believe the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. I don't much care who signed on to it.

Republicans haven't earned my trust. I find myself repeating that frequently here. If you want to vent about the fecklessness of Republicans go right the heck ahead pal. You don't need me for that. While you're at it, why not vent about all politicians.

Look at the mess we're in.

Utter BS and logic failure on behalf of Greg Sargent. What a surprise.

The link provided lists Mrs. Bartley as an advocate for the victims in their pursuit of civil compensation.

But according to dimwit here, she now speaks for all of them on all matters.

Do you ever get tired of being so demonstrably wrong?

The drug-induced rantings of El Rushbo and the rest of the conservatards shows they're really on the side of the terrorists. They deliberately sabotaged the chances of giving them a fair trial. They knew we would win any fair trial. So they deliberately made sure the evidence would be tainted.

And then blame Obama.

As bin Laden would say, Mission Accomplished!

The drug-induced rantings of El Rushbo and the rest of the conservatards shows they're really on the side of the terrorists. They deliberately sabotaged the chances of giving them a fair trial. They knew we would win any fair trial. So they deliberately made sure the evidence would be tainted.

And then blame Obama.

As bin Laden would say, Mission Accomplished!