Do you honestly think---for one second---that he took the time to think about the ramifications of using come estas, as opposed to como esta?

Good God almighty, talk about grasping at straws!

Oh yeah . . . SO WHAT????

Freddie, you need to consider the results of adversarial relationships. What derives from such relationships? You Freddie probably derive some type of emotional satisfaction from them. Okay, so if the President doesn't meet with Chavez or speaks disparagingly of him, your emotions are assuaged, right? But, how is that productive for this Nation which the President represents?

Others on this Board have posted that the US has had cordial and productive relationships with China since the early 70s despite the fact that China's governments since then have been among the most repressive of this planet's governments. In lieu of such relationships, what would have been the result of an adversarial relationship with China over the past several decades?

See if real life was like Pro Wrestling, Chavez would have grasped his hand...then clothesline, and piledriver him through a conference table. Then Obama issues a match at the PPV, where Obama with the 'Bama Slama wins.



One less, very lucrative, market for American commerce, among other things.

Also, no Yao Ming. Just remember that Rockets fan.

Imagine if Cuba had opened up decades sooner in the 1970s. The U.S. could have been a fortune down there, but since Western Europe has beaten us to the punch...we're scrambling to get a thin slice, if and when we get down there. Our national cigar industry will orgasm when it happens though.

Did it ever occur to you that "talking to other world leaders", especially those that we disagree most, just might keep us out of another unnecessary war? might *gasp* improve relations? Because certainly strutting around like you're the only country that matters, calling countries axes of evil, invading another country based upon a lie isn't doing much good. Obama's demonstrating a good leader's starting point in resolving conflicts. He is saying can disagree, without being disagreeable, and the benefits of maintaining civility far outweigh your hysterical chest thumping based thinking that gets us nowhere.

What a sad state of affairs that some hysterical minds view the simple act of shaking hands as a "big deal" treason and makes Obama a socialist...sorry communist...sorry I mean fascist.....

If only I could live to see it -- to be there with you. Uh, what I wouldn't give for -- twenty more years. Here we are protected -- free to make our profits without key follow with the goddamn Justice Department and the FBI. Ninety miles away, partnership with a friendly government -- ninety miles. It's nothing. Just one small step, looking for a man that wants to be President of the United States -- and having the cash to make it possible. RONNIE, we're bigger than U.S. Steel.

And gold telephones too!

Just to prove I can be objective and that I can, indeed, find fault with the guy I voted for, I'm going to go on record as saying that I'm opposed to this. I don't think the President has any right to make legal decisions. It's a very slippery slope and he doesn't want to be setting such a dangerous precedent. Hopefully, it won't get to that point.

OBAMA OPEN TO TORTURE PROSECUTION

By BEN FELLER – 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Widening an explosive debate on torture, President Barack Obama on Tuesday opened the possibility of prosecution for Bush-era lawyers who authorized brutal interrogation of terror suspects and suggested Congress might order a full investigation.

Less than a week after declaring it was time for the nation to move on rather than "laying blame for the past," Obama found himself describing what might be done next to investigate what he called the loss of "our moral bearings."

His comments all but ensured that the vexing issue of detainee interrogation during the Bush administration will live on well into the new president's term. Obama, who severely criticized the harsh techniques during the campaign, is feeling pressure from his party's liberal wing to come down hard on the subject. At the same time, Republicans including former Vice President Dick Cheney are insisting the methods helped protect the nation and are assailing Obama for revealing Justice Department memos detailing them.

Answering a reporter's question Tuesday, Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted. The methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last Thursday, included such grim and demeaning tactics as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to simulated drowning.

He said anew that CIA operatives who did the interrogating should not be charged with crimes because they thought they were following the law.

"I think there are a host of very complicated issues involved here," the president said. "As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."

Still, he suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.

The harsher methods were authorized to gain information after the 2001 attacks.

The three men facing the most scrutiny are former Justice Department officials Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury. Bybee is currently a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yoo is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley.

It might be argued that the officials were simply doing their jobs, providing legal advice for the Bush administration. However, John Strait, a law professor at Seattle University said, "I think there are a slew of potential charges."

Those could include conspiracy to commit felonies, including torture, he suggested.

Bybee also could face impeachment in Congress if lawmakers were so inclined.

A federal investigation into the memos is being conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which usually limits itself to examining the ethical behavior of employees but whose work in rare cases leads to criminal investigations.

The chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary committees said Tuesday they want to move ahead with previously proposed, independent commissions to examine George W. Bush's national security policies.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who has referred to his proposed panel as a "Truth Commission," said, "I agree with President Obama: An examination into these Bush-Cheney era national security policies must be nonpartisan. ... Unfortunately, Republicans have shown no interest in a nonpartisan review."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed separate hearings by his committee in addition to an independent commission.

Over the past weekend, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview the administration did not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." White House aides say he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

Yet it was unclear exactly whom Obama meant in opening the door to potential prosecutions of those who "formulated the legal decisions." Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the president meant the lawyers who declared the interrogation methods legal, or the policymakers who ordered, them or both.

"I don't know the answer to that," Gibbs said during a briefing in which he was peppered with questions about the president's words. Later, he added: "The parsing of some of this is better done through a filter of the rule of law and done at the Justice Department and not done here at the White House."

When pressed about any confusion stemming from his comments and Emanuel's, Gibbs said: "Take what the president said, as I'm informed he got more votes than either of the two of us."

A number of Republicans, including former Vice President Cheney and former top intelligence officials, say Obama has undermined national security with his release of the memos on the matter. On the other side, some Democratic lawmakers, human rights groups and liberal advocates want to see punishment for those involved in sanctioning brutal interrogations — the kind they say amount to torture and have damaged U.S. standing around the world.

"Certainly, this is an attempt not just to stake a ground between the left and the right, but also to navigate through something that he would prefer not be there as an ongoing issue," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar of U.S. politics at the American Enterprise Institute.

"He's walking the tightrope," Ornstein added. "You don't want to give a blanket, `Everything's OK, we're only moving forward.' And you don't want a president making a decision that it is a legal decision."

Obama said he was not proposing that another investigation be launched, but if it happens it should be done in a way that does not "provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way."

Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett and Larry Margasak contributed to this report.

PB, as the federal government's chief executive, the President has the authority (or right as you state it) to exercise prosecutorial discretion. There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes his doing so. His oath as well as his Constitutional duty to ensure the enforcement of federal law also support his actions.

[EDIT: Sorry, mis-read the post.]

I'm good with some kind of commission that makes findings. Prosecutions IMHO are a slippery slope which could make us like a bannana republic which puts every previous administration in jail. I firmly believe Gonzales, Runsfeld Cheney and maybe even Bush are guilty of crimes, but the bottom line is they did what they did with a complicit congress, they were re-elected when the people knew what they were up to, and now they are out of office. The time to have gone after them was when they were in office, and no one impeached them, so there it is.

The last thing we need are a bunch of self erving congressional gas bags hauling former Bushies in front of their committees so they can scold and pontificate.
Congress needs to focus on the economy, health care, and to get ready for what I think is going to be a major war involving Pakistan.

True DT, but what I am concerned about and which noone in DC has addressed is the "end justifies the means" philosophy.

"In an apparent reversal, President Barack Obama is reviving the Bush administration's much-criticized military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees, shocking those who expected the president to end them completely."

FULL STORY

He has added some rights for the defendants, but is showing that he ran to the left of the way he is governing, esp. on
security issues. I think he pays close attention to his military advisor, Gates, and Petreaus.

Not sure what he hopes to accomplish in Afghantan, however.

DC, everyone is bigger than U.S. Steel!

Indeed, and some of the rights he gave are the sort of things we usually expect within our Justice System and courts, so I don't have a problem on the surface with such revised tribunals.

I think he's trying to be pragmatic, and also politically able to be accused by the right of being an appeaser or whatever.

I much admire Obama, not for the ideology or necessarily policy, but for his political chess.

Obviously you all remember him placing, or trying at least, to hook much of his powerful Democratic primary foes into his cabinet: Biden (Vice-President), Clinton (State), Richardson (Commerce before he withdraw because of the Federal probe), Edwards (would have been Attorney General if not for the Love Child), etc.

Then there is the appointment of Utah Governor Huntsman (R) as Ambassador to China, who might have been a contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. An outside shot, but still a threat.

We must remember that like Nixon in 1972, the Obama White House is trying its best to pick the GOP oppositional candidate of their own choosing for 2012. Huntsman was at best an outside shot for the GOP nod, but still a threat to the Administration. Apparently they feared Hunstman the most of all the speculated/expected 2012 GOP candidates. To quote what a senior aide told the National Journal: "He's much like the President: Young, charismatic, and Moderately appealing."

I'm reminded of 1996, when Dick Morris (back when he was Clinton's re-election advisor) said that the Clinton White House's hoped that Bob Dole would be their opponent (which they got) and the man they wanted to campaign against the least was Lamar Alexander (who got buried in the GOP Primaries).

Well, Obama I'm sure wants Sarah Palin (or am I wrong?) for his team probably thinks she is the weakest national candidate of the GOP field, or is it Huckabee? You tell me. Regardless, Huntsman took the Ambassadorship because he's I guess planning for a 2016 run after the GOP get schlacked with their base fringe candidate...much like Walter Mondale in 1984 or McGovern in '72.

Besides, we've had U.S. Presidents who previously were Ambassadors, like John Quincy Adams (Prussia/Netherlands/Portugal), James Buchanan (UK), and George H.W. Bush (U.N./China). Point is, Huntsman is a possible national future route for the GOP. Possible.

None of those three former ambassadors exactly lit it up as president, and all three were one termers, with Buchanan being the worst president in history.

Obama is a brilliant tactician, having neutralized the Clintons, kept much of the defense and national security team in place (while simultaneously abolishing the excesses of Bush), and now picking this ambassador.

In 2012 my guess is the GOP big shots will make a determination whether Obama is weak enough to lose or not. If not they'll hold their fire for 2016 and allow Palin or Huckabee to be the scarificial lamb.

Good logic DT, though I forgot to add James Monroe, Ambassador to UK who later became a two-term President.

Your theory is good, and I think similarly except a flaw that necks us is 1988.

You remember, Bush Sr. had a tough GOP primary field and well, he wasn't exactly a splendid candidate. That's why many Democrats thought front-runner Gary Hart would have dispatched GHWB, except the Monkey Business affair sank Hary's campaign.

Al Gore maybe could have snatched the momentum on Super Tuesday, but he got chop blocked by Jesse Jackson's token campaign which won him a few primaries (i.e. South Carolina), and thus the traditional liberal, if shitty, candidate Dukakis prevailed, and got creamed by Bush Sr.

So really, opportune time for the Dems to have learned their lesson, they still missed the point, and payed for it.

So far no posts about the President's Supreme Court associate justice nomination. She's eminently qualified, but I have have reservations about her approach to judicial decision-making.

I have to admit that I have never heard of Sotomayor before this nomination, so it would be unfair for me to "judge" her. But the Wall Street Journal, one of the only truly objective media outlets left, has it's doubts about her.

The 'Empathy' Nominee

The WSJ an "objective" paper???? Surely you jest .

The Journal is about as objective as MSNBC.

She's alright I guess, though I think its strange how Scalia and Thomas both were presented as having "empathy" or that "Compassionate Conservatism" (a label which Dubya sorta stained)...:p

She'll get confirmed, I mean I think even more rational mature Republicans up on the Hill know this. The fireworks is to entertain the battle-hungry base.

The problem is that for any possible legit argument against her, that pool got pissed in with the Limbaugh and other such wingnuts calling her a racist or anti-American or whatever.

I mean take George Will. He at least gave a logical argument in bitchslapping Obama's own claim that she "saved baseball." I know its not much, but its a start.

Nevada is legalizing domestic partnerships, with the state Assembly voting Sunday evening to override a veto by the governor, officials said.

The decision by the Nevada Legislature follows a tumultuous week for proponents of same-sex marriage. The Assembly voted 28-14 to override Gov. Jim Gibbons' veto of a domestic partner bill, said Kathy Alden of the chief clerk's office.

With the vote, Nevada will extend most of the rights given to married couples to couples in domestic partnerships, including those of the same sex.

The bill will take effect on October 1.

the Morality Quarantine is breaking!

I would love to know Asfaneh's reaction to that Cairo Speech today.

I seen on the Today Show yesterday that Nancy Reagan was at the Whitehouse. Boy was she looking frail.

I was struck by her appearance also. I keep thinking of her as she appeared as First Lady.

She's what, 90?

It's weird how Democrats seem to kissing up to Reagan as much as Republicans, and I've written before about Obama trying whenever he can to connect himself to the Reagan Mystique.

Nancy Reagan does look very frail. However, I think she is in good health for her age no? God Bless her.

Anyone following Obama's trip? Speeches? He visited Buchenwald, Germany today with an actual survivor, Elie Wiesel.

They had an interview with Elie on NPR (don't know when the interview was taped) telling of how he was a young boy and how he was with his father when he died and yet NOT with him. In a cell by him as his father called out in pain and called his name but yet not able to go to him when he heard him call him. It was so sad. He spent time with President Obama today. I feel so sad for this guy.

TIS

Did you ever read "Night", TIS?? He was so YOUNG when his family was taken. He took Oprah on a tour of the camp a few years ago. It was heartbreaking.

I didn't see the President today. I'll try to catch some of the footage on the news.

As for Mrs. Reagan, the President is playing nice with her right now. She publicly protested President Bush's partial ban on stem cell research. When President Obama overturned it, he didn't invite Mrs. Reagan to witness the signing, and she was apparently (and understandably) put out. He's trying to make it up to her.