Author Topic: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them  (Read 2937 times)

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« on: May 16, 2009, 11:16:52 PM »
What is happening to the MSM?  This story seems to be telling the truth about what is happening behind the scenes in the Democrat party.

Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090517/ap_on_go_co/us_democrats_security_analysis;_ylt=Aj335dRSdZJwTjXJygAfovZ34T0D

 
WASHINGTON – Democrats just can't seem to get on the same page on national security — and it could cost them dearly on an issue Republicans have dominated for decades.

Increasingly, President Barack Obama and Democrats who run Congress are being pulled between the competing interests of party liberals and the rest of the country on Bush-era wartime matters of torture, detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

The Democratic Party's struggle over how to position itself on these issues is threatening to overshadow Obama's ambitious plans for energy, education and health care. It's also keeping the country looking backward on the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, much to the chagrin of the new White House. And, it's creating an opening for an out-of-power GOP in an area where Democrats have made inroads.

Governing from the center and backtracking on a previous position, Obama decided this past week to fight the release of photos that show U.S. troops abusing prisoners. The president said he feared the pictures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then he decided to resume military tribunals for some Guantanamo detainees after a temporary suspension. "This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values," he said.

The developments riled liberals who are important campaign-year foot soldiers and fundraisers.

"These recent decisions are disheartening," said Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union. "He has shown backbone on some issues and not on others."

On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi protected the party's left flank by accusing the CIA of lying to her about the agency's use of a form of simulated drowning on suspected terrorists. "We were told that waterboarding was not being used," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "And we now know that earlier they were." The CIA disputes Pelosi's account.

As Democrats splintered, Republicans watched with glee.

The irony is these are the same wartime issues created by Bush and the GOP-led Congress that Democrats successfully campaigned against in 2006 and 2008. The conflicting Democratic positions threaten to undercut the party's gains on national security; polls last fall showed Democrats had drawn even on national security issues long dominated by the GOP.

The White House desperately wants to get Democrats in Congress focused on the president's priorities. Obama's team has made it clear it's not eager to retread the past. But House and Senate liberals, prodded by a vocal and active network of grass-roots and "netroots" supporters, relish doing just that, seemingly fixated on how Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney handled Iraq and terrorism.

And it's the popular new president who may have the most to lose.

Obama is facing the same predicament that confronted and confounded other recent Democratic presidents. While governing as centrists, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter bent over backward on issues of war and peace, working to appease the party's left wing without being held hostage by it.

Defeated Democratic nominees — John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, Michael Dukakis in 1988 — lost in part because Republicans successfully tagged them as soft on security.

Obama appears to be trying for a balance between keeping campaign promises to reverse Bush policies and protecting national security.

Overall, Obama seems less willing to systematically overturn Bush's national security positions than his domestic policies.

There are signs that making good on his promise to close Guantanamo in his first year is proving exceedingly difficult. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder reassured lawmakers that the administration would not release Guantanamo prisoners into U.S. neighborhoods.

In blogs and on cable TV, Democratic critics griped that Obama was appearing more like Bush than the Democrat who won the nomination by rallying liberals around his pledge to end the Iraq war quickly.

Answering liberal complaints, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "First and foremost, the president does what is in the best security interest of the United States."

Obama is betting that liberals will forgive him for changing course on these issues. He does have several years to make it up to them before his likely re-election campaign.

Conversely, Obama may have further endeared himself to moderates and independents who are more hawkish on national security and are important to his winning coalition. It's also possible that conservative Republicans may now be more open to dealing with him because of his moves on security issues.

With those actions, Obama may have undercut Cheney's complaint that the Democrat's policies were endangering the country. The president also may have insulated himself from further weak-on-security attacks following a campaign during which skeptics questioned his readiness to lead the military in wartime.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti covers the White House for The Associated Press and has covered national politics since 2003.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2009, 11:52:35 PM »
Campaigning for a job does not equal doing the job which does not always equal keeping the job.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2009, 12:12:24 AM »
Pelosi's flip flopping around caught the attention of the media.  Obama can not stage manage the Pelosi-CIA-ACLU spitball fight.  Therefore the fight must cease.  Nothing is permitted to draw attention away the the president.  Pelosi is officially under the bus.  All that remains is for obama to put it in gear and drive off.  Pelosi is done for.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2009, 08:26:55 AM »
Baloney. Representatives of the Democratic (sic) party have billions of dollars in the U.S. Treasury to spend on votes.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2009, 04:28:29 PM »
She/They've already gone to the "It's all Bush's Fault" defense.   The media will sweep it under the rug, Pelosi will stay on as SOTH (to bad it's not "IN The House"....SITH), and media will go back to reporting that the administration will doubleplusgood the number of number of unicorns and puppies eminating from the .gov by the beneficence of our beloved leader.
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

buzz_knox

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2009, 08:19:25 AM »
She/They've already gone to the "It's all Bush's Fault" defense.   The media will sweep it under the rug, Pelosi will stay on as SOTH (to bad it's not "IN The House"....SITH), and media will go back to reporting that the administration will doubleplusgood the number of number of unicorns and puppies eminating from the .gov by the beneficence of our beloved leader.

It depends.  I suspect that this story has the legs it does because Pelosi (seeing Obama as the empty suit she knew and loved from Congress) decided to flex her muscles.  Obama or his handlers decided to flex back.  She will either learn to obey or the media will be given the opportunity to take down a sitting speaker who has antagonized the closest thing they have to a messiah. 

Clem

  • New Member
  • Posts: 34
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2009, 09:21:57 AM »
This seems pretty typical. The party in power tends to split on all the fault lines of the groups that came together to achieve power. The party out of power tends to come together to get back into power. The Dems are splitting into their factions as they try to govern, but the Repubs haven't come together yet. It will be interesting to watch.

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2009, 09:38:56 AM »
Quote
The Dems are splitting into their factions as they try to govern, but the Repubs haven't come together yet. It will be interesting to watch.

Obama has split the party by retreating on his Iraq promises, which ticked off the ultra-liberal (Pelosi) wing. There's more than that, but the anger over Obama's flip-flops abound.

The Republicans are still jockeying for control of the party, with the Blue Blood Republicans, social Republicans (Limbaugh, Palin), and moderate Republicans vying for the driver's seat, and Steele doing a poor job of holding them together.

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2009, 10:38:59 AM »
War wise, have you noticed how much of the MSM is still doing stories that focus more on Bush and Cheney, rather than Obama?

Thats astounding to me. I think they are afraid to report on Obama's war fighting strategy and policies, largely becasue it is basicaly an extension fo the Bush era practices with some expansion.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2009, 07:35:02 PM »
It depends.  I suspect that this story has the legs it does because Pelosi (seeing Obama as the empty suit she knew and loved from Congress) decided to flex her muscles.  Obama or his handlers decided to flex back.  She will either learn to obey or the media will be given the opportunity to take down a sitting speaker who has antagonized the closest thing they have to a messiah. 

No, Nancy was looking to get her chestnuts out of the fire, in case the administration started up the [Our version of the] "Truth Commissions" .  She's saying: "Waterboarding ?!?!?!  They never told me about Waterboarding !!!"  and now her defense consists of  a combo platter of "Bush Lied" and "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Nancy needs to preserve her "I was against everything Bush and Cheney did from the get-go." creds, otherwise the administartion may look to having her step down and handpicking her successor.   

Although I really don't know why she is making a big deal out of this.  When the smoking gun of Jamie Gorelick's "Wall of Separation" memo came out in 9/11 commssion hearings, everyone pretty much yawned and just went on to blame Bush.  Hell, Nancy could probably have waterboarded a couple of detainee's herself and she'd get a pass from the media by just saying "Bush made me do it."
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2009, 07:37:29 PM »
Although from my understanding the DOJ ruled that showing the detainee's pics of Pelosi and telling them that "This is what your 72 virgins will look like." was deemed to be torture.....

 :O =D :police: :laugh:
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.