Why isn’t Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the greatest heist on the People in all history?

Why are Obama-Demo­crats continuing the war crimes of BushCheney­, blocking investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into their crimes?

We have Obama-Demo­crats to thank for the resurrecti­on of Republican­s. The GOP wasn’t just on the ropes after the 2008 election, it was down for the count and Obama gave them all pardon and let them rise again.

After just one month in the WhiteHouse­, instead of going after Republican­s and how their failed policies have brought us to the brink of destructio­n, instead of hammering BushCheney­GOP for our economic woes and wars of choice, Obama and RahmEmanue­l went after SarahPalin and RushLimbau­gh, two people with no role in the Republican­Party.

Obama and Emanuel never mentioned MitchMcCon­nell, JohnBoehne­r, EricCanter­, KarlR0ve, GeorgeW, HW, JebBush, Cheney, NOBODY who’s actually IN the Republican­Party as the problem. Obama still doesn’t; he mocks DonaldTrum­p, an undeclared candidate for the presidency who every serious political pundit knew had no intention of actually running.

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminally corrupt administra­tion in the nation’s history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administra­tion. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the BushAdmini­stration). Instead of returning the democracy to the American people, Obama’s AttorneyGe­neral has US attorneys going after legalized medicinal marijuana in the states and Bush-style obscenity prosecutio­ns:

http://www­.pittsburg­hlive.com/­x/pittsbur­ghtrib/s_6­91667.html

Obama’s continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better: How do any of Obama’s ‘most ardent supporters­’ explain Obama’s doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for ‘indefinite preventive detention’ and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret? Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don’t know how any Democrat can get behind this. How do Obama’s ‘most ardent supporters­’ explain all that to themselves­?
Marcospinelli

Of course, principally, I meant principle.

This is why this Liberal is ready to vote Libertarian

Though from a different perspective, I’m so there.

It would make me a different kind of hypocrite, but if I have to have a political philosophy,
liberty is as good an organizing principal as any.

http://www.obamatheconservative.com/

Skeptic,
Obama has done nothing to roll back the Bush violations of the fourth amendment of our Constitution. In fact those violations have been streamlined under the Obama administration. Assassinations, incarcerations, extra-ordinary renditions continue. The Drug War militarization of Mexico, funded by Bush on his way our the door, was ushered through by Obama’s administration and it spills authoritarianism into our nation. Our prisons are overflowing where rape and torture are rife. Lives are ruined forever by making a single mistake such as smoking a joint. The working people are more intolerably regulated than ever while the real criminals at the top continue to loot with impunity.
This is why this Liberal is ready to vote Libertarian.

What about Osama’s civil rights?

Pres. Obama’s foreign policy has followed Bush’s lead in almost every way. I don’t think our president has done such a great job on foreign policy at all. It is bankrupting this nation and creating more enemies and human suffering.

abqresident, the country does not operate by the president simply doing what he wants to do. Bush was able to do what he wanted to do but only with the approval of a Congress controlled in both chambers for six years by Republicans. Obama had Democratic majorities in both houses, but he faced resistance or rejection by threatened filibusters in the Senate by Republicans. Even with 58 Democrats and 2 Independents, Obama could not count on the support of all Democrats (think LIeberman, Nelson, Lincoln, among others from time to time). For instance, Republicans and some Democrats refused to fund the shut-down of Gitmo and the transfer of prisoners to maximum security prisons in the continental US. My concerns about Obama’s leadership is not that he faces sometimes insurmountable obstacles from Republicans; my concerns are that he makes efforts far too little, far too late and then caves on important, often traditional, Democratic policies positions and gets relatively little in exchange. He seems to hold himself hostage to his insistence on bipartisanship when, sometimes, partisanship is called for.

First of all, I am not and have not been a fan of President Obama so those of you that think he is the greatest president ever can stop reading now because I will never win you over nor will you win me over. Now for the those of you open to independent thought, I tend to agree with this writer. I believe that President Obama showed great leadership by giving the green light to go in and get Bin Laden. I also believe that he is showing great leadership in not releasing the photos. Unlike Sarah Palin, I do not think releasing the photos will do anything but damage to our future. I believe that this is the first time President Obama has shown leadership. For example, if the health care overhaul was such a great thing for us and our country, it should not have taken 18 months to get done especially when Democrats did not need a single Republican vote. He should have lead the country and said this is right and we are doing it and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, he wanted to make sure everyone could get re-elected and pander around to both the left and the right. If Guantanamo was really the scar on our country’s reputation like he said it was, he should have been a leader and closed it regardless of what his opponents said. If Afghanistan and Iraq were such wrong wars, he should have been more proactive in reducing our presence in those places. If using force is such a bad thing, why the hell did he let us get dragged into Libya. I was not a fan of President Bush and in fact, I blame him for getting us into a great deal of the problems we are currently having. Who would ever have thought that the greatest takeover of private industry by the government would happen under a so-called conservative president? But I can say that President Bush did what he thought was right for our country and made the decisions popular or not. President Obama on the other hand spent too much time trying to please too many people which is not a sign of leaderhsip in my book. If he takes what he learned with the Bin Laden decisions and becomes the leader people hoped he would be, that would be a great thing for our country. Sadly, I do not expect that and by the way, I don’t see any leading Republicans that I think would be great leaders either…. It is time for a new party to take hold in our country, too bad the Tea Party has allowed itself to be commandeered by crazies…..

It’s easy to be an arm-chair general and gauge the President’s performance from the sidelines. No one can really know what it takes to be President, to lead in times of war and economic crises, to deal with unemployment, and to put up with the rhetoric and prejudice that stirs from the right. It’s a hell of a time to be president.

As an independent, I haven’t been pleased with a lot of what the President has done or not done given his campaign promises, and capitulating on a lot of issues, but I’m glad he’s putting up the good fight.

powakee, usually commentators on this blog read the comments all the way through before writing their own comments. You write, “Then, without discussing or pointing out what is the difference in leadership between military and domestic affairs he continued to comment about something he commented about before.” My immediately following paragraph describes the difference.” If you had, I think that you would find that what it says pretty much agrees with what you say in your first paragraph. My poor writing: no, I think your poor reading.

Thank goodness I don’t have access to any newspaper that publishes this guy’s ramblings. Nuff said.

The reason every president is open for criticism on the domestic front is that arena requires the special talent of getting both houses of congress plus the executive branch to agree on a particular course for this government. As Lincoln observed in his oft quoted statement about pleasing some people ‘some of the time’ the reality is that the modern president (for argument purposes we can say Kennedy and subsequent) has very little interest in trying to perform on the home front. It is simply easier, for posterity sake, to act outside of our country’s borders. Anything any president does on the home front results in the two polar opposite political parties to criticize the act; it results in the news media criticizing the act; it results in political pundits (like Mr. Hays) criticizing the act and just about anyone else any of us can think of who might consider commenting on whatever the president does . . . on the home front.

Mr. Hays said, “I am probably not going to revise it any time soon because it is simply too soon to tell; the differences between leading in military affairs and leading in domestic ones are simply too great.” Then, without discussing or pointing out what is the difference in leadership between military and domestic affairs he continued to comment about something he commented about before. I don’t know how Mr. Hays taught when he was a college professor but if I had turned in a paper like that when I was in college it would have earned me a failing grade or it would have been returned so I could finish it. The writing in this article needs some support. I am returning it to Mr. Hays for a little more ‘beef.” I’d like to see him finish this article and give us something to think about besides the poor writing.