It seems that things are not quite as simple as that. Powerline has run a whole series on "Dueling Speeches" (they're American and do funny spelling) and, it would seem, that in the debate between President Obama and former Vice-President Cheney, the latter may well have done. Here is the last of those postings. And here is Sister Toldjah with a video. Rich Lowry explains how President Obama manages to excoriate his predecessors (is he ever going to stop campaigning?) while putting very similar practices into place.
Now we have the New York Times, well-known for its hatred of the President Bush and unquestioning support for The One, harrumping.
President Obama's proposal for a new legal system in which terrorism suspects could be held in “prolonged detention” inside the United States without trial would be a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free.Any chance of the British media understanding any of this?
"the new President is presiding over a happy and righteous society"
ReplyDeleteNot if the letter page of my local Virginian paper is anything to go by, and talking to friends here, it is. There are some very worried people here, who are looking at the sort of damage socialist policies have done in Europe and are fearful that the same will happen here. Freedom is ranked very highly here. There is deep unhappiness, at least in this small neck of the woods.
No, they never will stop Bush-bashing. For decades, Herbert Hoover got dragged out as the only (and horrible) alternative to Democratic economic proposals. He largely has been replaced by GWB, the fons et origo of evil.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Obama and his followers never mention that the Gitmo prisoners were not wearing any uniform or distinctive marking and, therefore, could have been gunned down on the spot. In fact, they still legally could be.