I made it clear that I thought Bush should have been impeached, but he should have been impeached for his illegal wiring tapping and infringement on the Bill of Rights.

True, they tried to work secretly and get things done without the public's knowledge, but every president has done that. During Clinton's administration were you aware that he (as other presidents before him) implemented the extraordinary rendition program? Do you truly believe that Reagan was not aware of the Iran/Contra mess? Or that Kennedy sought secret dialogue with Castro just before he was assassinated? President Tyler was considered a public robber. President Harding and his taking of bribes. Indonesian donations which made the Clinton presidency appear that foreign policy was for sale? Nixon's imperial presidency? Clinton invoking executive privilege (if you are going to talk about stonewalling investigations). When it comes to the illegal or immoral actions of the CIA and military, Bush did not start that. It became public knowledge under his term though. He may have expanded on extraordinary renditions due to the number of captives, but does that make him the only one to break the public's trust? Do you think that Obama is making decisions based on the same information you and I have? Will you give him carte blanche to do so and assume his decisions are moral and right and legal and not question anything? Do you honestly believe that waterboarding began under the Bush term?

What if the peanut butter scares are all dry runs for another type of attack in the food chain? What if extremists hit the major banking industry also? What if it is all a part of one major mass attack to come in the future to shutdown the industrialized world? What did Germany do between WWI and WWII? What do extremists do when they are not fighting? They prepare to fight.

If terrorists are working on producing an agent to use in their strikes such as the plague or worse: Sarin or even worse Soman or Cyclosarin or some thing not even known to the public yet, what would be acceptable then? If those terrorists were sponsored by a state (as most are) what would be acceptable then? If there was no means of protection against the agent and it had the propensity to cause world wide deaths and topple governments and economies, what is acceptable then? What is and what is not acceptable? How much should the public know? Not easy questions.

Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. Question everything.


>I truly cannot believe you said that. The Bush administration's obsession with secrecy and its attitude that it was answerable to no one were defining characteristics. It started right away -- remember Cheney's secret task force on energy legislation, which was conducted with oil industry lobbyists IN THE ROOM, and Cheney not only refusing to reveal what was discussed but even who was there? They stonewalled all inquiries, including Congressional subpoenas. Massive legal efforts to expand executive power and narrow disclosure requirements. The list goes on and on and on.
>
>Transparent? Wow.
>
>>The last presidency was probably the most transparent in history.
>>
>>
>>>I don't doubt that it's happened before. What I doubt is that it has ever been done on such a widespread scale and with so little sense of doing anything wrong.
>>>
>>>>Possibly because prior to it being made public during the Bush years, it was always cosmetic?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's hardly cosmetic to reaffirm our commitment to the Geneva Conventions and human rights. Coming the first week of the Obama administration, the repudiation of Bush administration policies in this area and the signal to the rest of the world could not be more clear. Not quite sure how you can consider this just political and cosmetic.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Since the purpose of the exercise is political and cosmetic it would seem anywhere it gets off the lefty blog radar would serve the purpose and make everyone feel good about themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe Said Ali al-Shihri, can tell us:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php?page=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Somehow the thought of a Saudi terrorist rehabilitation center just doesn't promote images of 'rehabilitation.' They still claim %100 success. Now the U.S. is considering opening one up in Yemen? How likely is it that it will be an improvement on Guatamano? I guess that means they won't be moved into the U.S....