The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label POTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POTUS. Show all posts

Friday, May 30, 2014

Cheney? Dick Cheney? As Assessor Of A US President?

A comment from POTUS that has to make US conservative war-hawks sick to their jingoist stomachs.

"Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail." — President Obama on U.S. leadership in the world

I am certain the comment and subsequent Tweet has John McCain salivating in rage, Lindsey Graham holding McCain hand in sympathetic solace and Kelly Ayotte enacting a "what do I do next?" followers posture.

Presidents Obama's announcement of the US draw-down of US troops in Afghanistan is the natural next stage of removal of the 'Hammer when there is no nail worthy of continued driving forces.' The draw-down is also the anticipation and expected continuum of the graphic just above.

Reuters November 2013 captured the Obama Afghanistan "surge" and associated coalition deaths....(added text and identifiers via The Pardu.) 

President Obama enacts Executive Branch leadership by reducing US troop strength and presence in Afghanistan. Of course, the chorus from the Right is: "....weak, failure, sending messages to the Taliban, sending message across the globe." The very loudest and most detestable of whiners is of all people Dick Cheney.

Cheney is the least credible person to comment about US incursion into foreign nations. Since, we know his history, his dark side and his ineptitude, we will not dwell on an old man who should simply pass away in time much like his former WMD conspirator: George W. Bush.  

Let's instead take a look at how polled Americans view military involvement in Afghanistan. In 2013, ABC News published a George W. Bush survey that reflects other sourced information available to President Obama.

ABC News Poll (Langer Research) December 2013
"Most Want Some Troops In Afghanistan Despite Strong Criticism of The War"

If polled Americans have much less interest in continuing Afghan "nation protecting and nation building," what would be the logic of following GOP war hawks who are so obviously wanton of war? 

Only news show hosts on MSNBC can effectively analyze the rambling blabber of Dick Cheney and Fox News facilitating propagandist: Sean Hannity. We will start with brief Politics Nation, Al Sharpton comments following Cheney's Hannity appearance. (1:44 minutes)

Now for a much more detailed analyses and comment session from The Last Word (fill-in host) Ari Melber along with two MSNBC show host.

The Last Word Intro (Ari Melber)

A detailed discussion.

Late yesterday morning, Huffington Post published a piece with comment from Richard Clark, former counter-terrorism official in the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Clark's comment when coupled with comment from former Colin Powell aid Lt. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson cast a real shadow on Cheney's inane ramblings about appearing "weak." 

Former Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Bush, Cheney Committed War Crimes


"I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes. Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have,” said Clarke, who resigned in 2003 after the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. “But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers of countries have been indicted and have been tried.”
In the first-ever judgment of its kind, Bush and seven other top members of his administration were convicted in absentia of war crimes in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2012 for the unlawful invasion of Iraq. 
“So the precedent is there to do that sort of thing. And I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not it would be useful to do that in the case of members of the Bush administration,” Clarke continued. “It’s clear that things that the Bush administration did -- in my mind, at least, it’s clear that some of the things they did were war crimes." 
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, also accused Cheney of war crimes in 2011, citing the former vice president's affinity for enhanced interrogation techniques.

"Waterboarding is a war crime, unwarranted surveillance ... all of which are crimes," Wilkerson said in 2011. "I don't care whether the president authorized him to do it or not, they are crimes."
Read more linked in title above

As Alex Wagner stated in the video clips above, Cheney seems to have deep rooted inertia for legacy remedy and character props. Of late, the former vice president  appears before cameras with any mention of Iraq or Afghanistan and his appearances seem to have devolved to mere Obama character assassination. Fox News provides an open platform for the old predator as the network (regardless of recent ratings) fulfills its role as a devotee to delivery of Right-wing dogma. 

On May 19th, we published a piece about Cheney, his book-hawking wife, and Chris Wallace in discussion of President Obama. 

Question. Is it possible Fox News actually feels it is providing new worthy broadcast segments of Dick Cheney? 

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Video | President Obama Meet The Press Interview

Cross posted from (Give the Blog a visit)

Video | President Obama Meet The Press Interview

David Gregory gets some face time with President Obama and he gets schooled on the finer points of how to interview a TRUE STATESMAN.


Friday, June 15, 2012

Raw Video: Obamas Tour World Trade Center Site

The Political has solved a bit of a mystery thanks to a prolific reader and supporter.

What exactly did President Obama wrote as he and Mrs. Obama visited the site of the 9/11 attacks?

Raw Video: Obamas Tour World Trade Center Site

Sunday, September 18, 2011

When Did Disrespecting the President Become Okay?

Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic. And there’s nothing racist about this. It is what it is. If he had been a dynamic, white, state senator elected to Congress he wouldn’t have gotten in the game this fast. This is what made him different. That, combined with the fact that your profession”—another friendly tap of the bumper sticker—”not you, but your profession, was just absolutely compliant. They made up their minds early that they were in love with him. They were in love with him because they thought he was a good liberal guy and they were in love with him because he pushed that magical button: a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that.” -----Joe Walsh, U.S Congressman (R), Illinois

Disrespect for the President, disrespect of the Office of the President of the United States and disrespect for you and me as citizens of the nation.

Last Thursday, I heard Mike Barnacle of the MSNBC show, "Morning Joe," ask his cohorts, how the business of 'no applause' in the U.S Congress became vogue. When did it start? How did it start? Someone on the panel, I believe Joe Scarborough replied, "Richard Nixon". The discussion ended after few words about how trivial and unproductive a set of behavior; Mika indicated that it was nice to see them sit next to each other for one Joint Congressional Session. Conversation over at that point.

A quick review of history yielded no information related to 'applause lines' (Congressional speak). The review did yield that the practice of the parties seating on opposite sides of the aisle started in 1840 with the Democrats and the Whigs (Republicans).

Since the basis for the Barnacle's comment related to overall interaction and decorum between the two parties, it did not take long for a bit of related thought. What started the current antagonistic atmosphere between the two major political parties?

FDR dealt with the same level of opposition to policies that President Obama now faces, but the issue of antagonistic and jingoistic behavior from the right is another matter.

Since I am a bit young to recall pre-JFK U.S. History, my memory of his Administration is vague.   Johnson's administration is just as vague. Unfortunately, my first active memory of U.S politics was the Richard Nixon Administration.

While far too young to remember the legislatively productive Johnson Years, I do not recall that Lyndon Johnson faced the bold and open vitriol of today's politics.

As the 36th President of the United States of America and the 37th Vice President, Johnson faced  'Mount Everest'  like legislative and societal issues.  Without a doubt, Johnson faced challenges comparable to issues of today, but the Republicans of his day appeared far more civil in tone and behavior than the GOP of today.  From dismantling Jim Crowe in the South, to desegregating public schools across the nation, to conducting the Vietnam War, Johnson had enemies from  every imaginable viewpoint.

Yet, I find no history that includes the level of vitriol, hatred, and general discord as we have today. General discord is as American as the banana split or the chocolate malt'  For that matter, hatred is certainly a mental flaw that has lived in human beings, I am certain, since man first laid eyes on other men.  Our current state of vitriol and bold (open and public) disrespectful expressions does not have roots in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" (mid-1960s).

A few years after Johnson refused to run for a second term, politics in the nation changed forever.   The early days of Richard Nixon's first administration were domestically peaceful in comparison to Johnson's tumultuous anti-war and civil rights battles on the streets of our cities.   A useful analogy of the change is the difference between a peaceful high altitude natural spring and the eventual swirling and rapid flows of a major river (e.g., the Mississippi River). Nixon's early years as president were consumed with issues centered around ending the Vietnam War.   Or, should I say of what we knew of the early Nixon years, there was national peace across the land. Little did we know!