NYT: Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's, page 1

NYT: Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's

www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON - Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush ’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda .

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheDarkNight]

Why doesn't this not surprise me? Does it not surprise you?

I think it was Thomas Jefferson that stated: if you see ongoing repressions that last beyond one administration and are carried over into another (many of the same policies), especially if that new administration is of a new party, that is indication of a conspiracy.

Correct me if I'm wrong for I would really like to know who said this.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by TheDarkNight

---

Dunno who it is you are referring to that talked about conspiracy between one political party and another, but... this was predicted. Many ATS members predicted that the Obama administration would be identical to that of Bush's....

Funny how a mainstream source is saying this, and I am not one bit surprised. More disappointed, than anything else.

So much for "change", eh?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

---

Pfft. Nothing in the post was correct.

1) Obama has ALWAYS been going to Afghanistan.

2) Rendition is not a Bush policy. It's a policy of all presidents in recent history.

3) Rendition does not change Obama's stance on torture.

4) The bail outs were not "Bush's", they were Congress'.

5) This is a stimulus package, not a "bailout".

reply to post by Irish M1ck

---

Obama's stance on torture.

Do you actually believe that Obama transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone will not end up in them being tortured?

IMO that is the reason they are being transferred there. I don't really buy his stance on torture if he willing to transfer prisoners to these type of places.

Originally posted by nyk537
I thought Obama said he had ALWAYS been against the war itself.

Nope!

He even said while he was campaigning that he wanted to see more troops on the ground in Afghanistan!

Obama policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan

Thursday, March 20, 2008
******SKIP******
It is not too late to prevail in Afghanistan. But we cannot prevail until we reduce our commitment in Iraq, which will allow us to do what I called for last August – providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan.

And even a year before that, ...

Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win

Washington, DC | August 01, 2007
******SKIP******
I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."
******SKIP******
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan

[edit on 2/18/2009 by Keyhole]

reply to post by nyk537

---

Obama has always been against the Iraq war, but has consistantly stated that he wants to surge troops in Afghanistan.

And as for the stimulus package... well, that's a personal opinion. I mean, clearly it is meant to stimulate. I have this question:

As a republican, why do you find these so offensive? Is it not supply-side economics to be forking over free cash to businesses (I mean with no strings attached).

Personally, as a democrat, I'd rather this money go straight to the people (demand-side). But, as long as there are no real tangible strings to these businesses (and I don't think there are in this package), then it should be right up most conservative's alley.

reply to post by jam321

---

If every president that has used it before him tortured also... then I guess so. I have not seen evidence of this, however.

reply to post by LostNemesis

---

Yeah...I agree. I never expected to see any real change, just the insignificant. But, that's my point. If they are supposedly two opposite sides of an ideology yet they continue the same policies, especially when the other was voted out for those policies (policies being unpopular) it may establish evidence of a hidden conspiracy.

Who they are working for and what they are working towards, we pretty much know. But does the public? Not so much...and that was my second reason for the post. You are right. It is surprising the MSM has picked up on this. Actually, I may think it more of a conspiracy if they chose not to address this issue of compliance (no change) between the two parties policies, domestic and foreign. But maybe it's a PR stunt to add luke warm credibility to a struggling MSN without going into the conspiratorial questions it hints at?

I'm a bit puzzled

Originally posted by TheDarkNight


Why does this not surprise me? Does it not surprise you?

I think it was Thomas Jefferson that stated: if you see ongoing repressions that last beyond one administration and are carried over into another (many of the same policies), especially if that new administration is of a new party, that is indication of a conspiracy.

Correct me if I'm wrong for I would really like to know who said this.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sorry, I hit the reply button here when I meant to hit the *edit* button. I guess they take that option away after a day.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheDarkNight]

reply to post by FlyersFan

---

Whatever.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Obama has always been against the Iraq war,

Actually that's not true. Obama goes around saying that, and a lot of people think that because of what Obama now says, but that's not true.

Story Here

During the 2004 Democratic Party convention, Obama declined to criticize the party's presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, for having voted for the war, saying: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

The next day, Obama told the Chicago Tribune: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

Sorry Irish M1ck .. I know you are just going by what Obama says now .. but he really wasn't 'always against the war'. That's just what his spinmiesters want you to think.

reply to post by Irish M1ck

---

Obama has always been against the Iraq war

Yeah, but he wasn't in a position to vote. If he had been,. it might have been different. Its all talk really. A lot of democrats voted for it based on what they knew from the previous administration. I see no reason why Obama would have been any different if he were privy to everything they knew.

reply to post by FlyersFan

---

Nice post FF. I agree with both of you (more so with you) because our current situation is a product of corruption within the system. A stimulus given directly to the people in conjunction with a tax cut is by far the most effective and ethical way (don't forget, it is our money) of turning the ship around. This stimulus bill (bailout) will prolong this recession and continues to reward corruption by protecting against insolvency. In fact, it may turn our economy into a real depression, which I believe is part of the Zionist NWO plan to weaken the middle class to destitution whereby they will see the NWO plan of "world government" as a saving grace.

The sad truth is: the Bush and Obama administrations have both rewarded corruption; hence, they are unwittingly part of a conspiracy.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheDarkNight]

BREAKING rumour: Kim Jong-Un assassinated?
  Posted 1 days ago with 78 member flags

Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds
  Posted 11 days ago with 41 member flags

Parents furious as 13-year-old girls given contraceptive implants at school without their knowledge
  Posted 2 days ago with 28 member flags

European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The \'Masquerade\' Behind ACTA
  Posted 15 days ago with 26 member flags

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbl
  Posted 8 days ago with 25 member flags

Romney Reports Income From Funds at Goldman Sachs
  Posted 17 days ago with 23 member flags

Again, Eric Holder Caught Lying Under Oath Regarding F&F!!! He knew about Agent Terry\'s Murder
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags

Catholic Church Strikes back at Obama Administration
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: