Fred had been the Republican candidate in the last election. Sigh!

..

Especially if his name was FRED!

I just don’t understand why he did not bring “Fred the actor” out to play last time up? Lefty’s love actors and Fred could have hypnotized a bunch of lefty’s into submission. If Fred the actor can show up with his fire & brimstone act then more people might get energized. Leave Fred the boring politician at home next time.

He could eat this narcissistic tool in the WH for lunch and have room left over for Emanuel. (Yeah, ok, then he’d need a double dose of Ipecac.)

I’m starting to think the ones who really want the presidency should never be allowed to have it.

This is not rhetorical. If the truth commission meets in secret is it still considered a show trial? And if they do bar the press and public then they can leak and distort and slant everything that goes on. Hard to imaging that last, eh?

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

needed for a good campaign. I don’t know if it was his cancer,or what, but it was definitely our loss.

He does make a good point here too as well. If they insist on going ahead with this, it will be fun to see Pelosi admit under oath that she knew about and authorized the techniques.

I swear, every time Obama opens his mouth, he convinces me a little bit more that he is actually NOT “the smartest president we’ve ever had”, .

But I think Fred should run again. He is the most articulate, unapologetic, and no nonsense spokesperson we have.

Yeah he is old, but he can paint Obama as the lightweight that he is. I know people will will point out lack of charisma, but I think the power of conservative ideas that are articulately expressed are powerful. People are anxious right now, They will appreciate a rock.somebody calm and steady, who they feel they can trust, whom they know will be straight with them no matter what.

I would recommend a very simple campaign slogan: “No BS.”

Thank goodness Fred took BHO to task for opening the door to an investigation of “enhanced interrogation.” And, it’s a shame BHO didn’t just say” it’s in the past, let’s move forward.” But, I don’t doubt for a minute that The One knows exactly what conservatives’ reactions would be.

Could it be just another distraction? So many of the things going on in the 3 months since the Coronation get us all riled up. We spend days and days hollering about all of it; when, we should be directing our energy towards fighting his (and the Congress) socialist agenda. And now they’re on the virge of nationalizing the banks.

Remember the brouhaha over the AIG bonuses? Good grief, it isn’t done yet. How about his announcement to cut a paltry $100 million from his massive budget? Even some of his nominations who withdrew their names. All distractions.

Yes, we need to fight all these things as hard as possible. But, we cannot let any single “thing” consume us for days and days. There are HUGE issues that are then allowed to keep their traction and gain momentum. This president and Congress need to be watched 24/7 or their goal of more socialism, massive growth in government, bigger unions, thereby locking in huge voting blocs, will be accomplished.

I think we should flood our Representatives’ offices with email/phone calls that make three salient demands: 1) No action can be taken by either House until every member of Congress and the Senate certifies in writing that they have personally read the memos and the memos called for by Vice President Cheney. They must also certify that they have read and understand the statutes which deal with applicable law and regulation regarding the release of classified data. 2) Any truth commissions created must have the power to call for and compell the testimony of current and past Congressional members and Senators to determine what they knew and when. 3) Since the Obama administration has voluntarily ceded protection afforded by ‘executive privilege’, they must also furnish all memos writtten regarding the release of these documents to complete their desire for transparency–let’s see who pushed for this release and hold them accountable.

We should then consider taking out ads in the Washington Post to remind Obama political appointees that they will have, at best, 8 years before they are subjected to the same scrutiny over missile defense, bailouts, cap and trade and other issues. Hindsight is always clearer, but frequently not very useful.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan signed executive order number 12333, which outlined the duties and responsibilities of America’s Intelligence Services. Included in that order was Part 2, Paragraph 2.11, which prohibited assassination, including in “conventional, counterinsurgency, and counter-terrorist operations. ”

However, the order was amended by interpretation in 1989:

MEMORANDUM ON EXECUTIVE ORDER 12333 AND ASSASSINATION
Colonel W. Hays Parks, USMCR (Ret.)

In a Memorandum of Law originally dated November 2, 1989, W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant for Law of War Matters to The Judge Advocate General of the Army, examined national and international legal interpretations of assassination in order to provide guidance in revising a U.S. Army Law of War Manual.

The memo is not a statement of policy, but rather a discussion of the definition of assassination and legal issues to consider in its application, including levels of conflict and the distinction between assassination in wartime and peacetime.

It explores the meaning and possible application of assassination—which is prohibited as a matter of national policy by Executive Order 12333—in conventional, counterinsurgency, and counter-terrorist operations.

The memo concludes that the use of military force against legitimate targets that threaten U.S. citizens or national security as determined by the President does not constitute assassination, and would therefore not be prohibited by Executive Order 12333 or by international law.

So that interpretation says in effect that Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama have all had (and Obama still has) the legal authority to order a subject killed should he determine the subject to be a threat to national security or to a US citizen. Obama did so, in effect, with the Somali pirates. But nowhere does it limit the death order to hostage situations. In effect, where national security interests are concerned, the President (and he alone) CAN order assassinations. They just wouldn’t call it that.

It strikes me as more than ludicrous that the same man that can order assassinations where national security interests are concerned can be later prosecuted for ordering waterboarding.

Am I missing something here?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044188941045415.html

By PETER HOEKSTRA

…….An honest and thorough review of the enhanced interrogation program must also assess the likely damage done to U.S. national security by Mr. Obama’s decision to release the memos over the objections of Mr. Panetta and four of his predecessors. Such a review should assess what this decision communicated to our enemies, and also whether it will discourage intelligence professionals from offering their frank opinions in sensitive counterterrorist cases for fear that they will be prosecuted by a future administration.

Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other antiterrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.

Mr. Hoekstra, a congressman from Michigan, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

and it is later shown that releasing these classified documents interfered with obtaining intelligence that could have prevent ed the attack or otherwise abetted the attackers, can charges be brought against the current administration?

Remember, they could have brought charges if they wanted-to without making the documents public – essentially conducting a bi-partisan in-camera hearing. It’s clear this whole morass is strictly for political reasons to assuage the far left and probably George Soros.

But then again, why should I be surprised. For the past eight years Democrats have been willing to betray their country and its soldiers strictly for what they saw as potential political gain.