Mr. Thiessen suffers from short term memory loss. It was only two weeks ago that a Bush administration official admitted that a Gitmo detainee was not brought to trial since his confession was obtained through the legal definition of torture.

“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.

I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it. – Washington Post. Bob Woodward

In Mr. Thiessen’s warped little mind, if another terrorists attack befalls the United States, “Americans will hold Obama responsible”. This may, or may not, be true. If, and that’s a very big if, but if the United States were attacked again, then the factors of such an attack would have to be figured into the equation as to why such an attack happened. Many factors would have to be looked at, like who orchestrated the attack, who carried out the attack, what country they came from, what were their motives, and how long ago were the plans put together.

Consider, for example, the CIA program that Bush created to detain and question senior leaders captured in the war on terror. Many of these terrorists, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, refused to talk — until Bush authorized the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques. Information gained using those techniques is responsible for stopping a number of planned attacks — including plots to blow up the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; to fly airplanes into the towers of Canary Wharf in London; and to fly a hijacked airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. – Washington Post, Marc A Thiessen, Op-Ed

Current news stories report of two former Gitmo prisoners are now active members of Al Queda. Republicans point to these two men as reasons why Gitmo should not be closed, and why water-boarding should remain on the menu of options for interrogators. What many Republicans will fail to tell you is that both of these men were released during the tenure of the George W. Bush administration. It’s a convenient point to leave out in order to score political points.

Another convenient fact that is often left by Republicans is the fact that several independent studies have shown that the Bush administrations policies have created more terrorists than they have eradicated.

One of Thiessen’s recurring themes throughout his media blitz is the fact that no terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11. Although this is true, there have been attacks on the lands of United States allies. Bush supporters will never let anyone forget 9/11, but just push the attacks on London and Madrid to the back of your mind. It’s quite obvious that the lives of Spaniards and English are not of equal value when compared to those of Americans. These are countries that supported our every decision that our former president made no matter how misinformed or ignorant that decision may have been.

Republicans are currently scratching their heads and wondering why America voted for change. They’re quick to point to the finger in every direction …. Well, every direction but their own.

Randall Thomas

The topic, of course, was torture.  Specifically, what the role of the Bush administration was in authorizing torture, who should be held accountable, and what the penalties should be.

There are several problems with Senator Bond’s statement.  First, he readily admits that the CIA operated under an opinion issued by then Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez.  Anyone with gray matter encased within their cranium knows that Alberto Gonzalez is not exactly the most ideal person to make sound judgments, much less the ability to interpret something as complicated as where “enhanced interrogation” ends and “torture” begins.  Flipping a coin would more than likely yield a better result.

Second, the Senator argues that the former President Bush’s order was lawful.  There are many in within the legal community who would argue that several of the techniques were (I use the past tense since they have been rescinded by the current administration) outside the rule of law.  Water torture, in particular, was a crime that the United States tried Japanese soldiers for during the Nuremberg trials following the end of World War II.

The Senator must also suffer from some rare form of Bush Protectionism Syndrome, also known as BPS.  BPS blocks neurons from traveling to the rational part of the brain and makes the subject prone to making a statement that contradicts itself.  Senator Bond is arguing that there should be no trail because what Bush did was lawful, but the purpose of a trial is to determine the legality of such an action.  How do we know it to be lawful if it has rarely been tested in a court of law?  On the rare occasions that it has been tested in a court of law, we, the United States, have almost always been the ones demanding justice and heading the prosecution against such offenders.

Finally, Mr. Bond argues that it would destroy the morale within the CIA.  I would really have to question the integrity of any CIA official that believes that circumventing the law is the wise and just move in protecting a free society that says it governs itself by the rule of law.  If such a member of the CIA does exist, then President Obama should immediately demand their resignation.

Senator Bond, this is not a political fight.  This is a fight between right and wrong, legal and illegal, and moral and immoral.  Torture is wrong, illegal and immoral.  Anyone who believes otherwise is not fit to hold political office or a job within government that is responsible for protecting the rights and providing security for a free nation.

Randall Thomas

This is one of the worst moves in New York politics.  Maybe Governor Paterson was not aware of Rep. Gillibrand’s vote against an assault weapon ban.  A ban that even a Republican Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, supported within the five burrows.  Maybe Governor Paterson was not aware that Rep. Gillibrand voted against the $700 billion bailout.  Maybe Governor Paterson was not aware of the bill she cosponsored that would make it harder for law enforcement to track weapons used in assault crimes.

She has actively opposed the efforts of New York City, and cities around the state and nation, to enact commonsense measures that keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. – Michael Bloomberg

Representative Gillibrand may fit the mold of a traditional 20th District Rep, but she doesn’t fit the mold of a Senator who must represent the entire state of New York.  What works well in rural areas like the Hudson Valley, Lake Placid, and the Adirondack Mountains (the three areas that fall wihtin the 20th District) does not work well in the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, Syracuse, Long Island and the five burrows of New York City.  Combined, these cities represent nearly 50% of the states population and almost all lean quite far to the left of the political spectrum.

There are also many unknowns.  Where does she stand on universal health care?  What about the seperation of church and state?  What exactly did she see in the TARP bill that made her vote against it?

Let’s face it, this woman is an unknown quantity in a state that prides itself on only selecting the best and most well known to represent its entire state on the national stage.  What hope does she have to raise over $40,000,000 within the next two years?  Let’s face it, the junior New York Senate seat is now in play in 2010 and 2012 and will probably be lost to the Republican party.

Our only true hope is that a real Democrat will step in the primary and beat out Representative Gillibrand and hopefully save the seat for the Democratic Party.  If not, then this complete loss will sit sqarely on the shoulders of Governor Paterson.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?  Why do we have to play the game by their rules?  Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed?  This is affirmative action, if we do that.  We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he’s doing simply because of the color of his skin?  – Rush Limbaugh

I’m not sure where to begin, but let me start by saying this …. When Bush was handed the 2000 election by the Supreme Court, I, nor any other liberals I know, wished for what we received from the Bush administration.  I never wished for our President, no matter what his political affiliation, to lead our country down the path of a financial meltdown that has not been seen since the Great Depression.  I never wished for our President to strip away rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution (domestic wiretapping, anyone?).  I never wished for a President who would take a time of crisis (to clarify for any neo-cons reading this, I am talking about 9/11) and use it to manipulate the public fervor in order to attack a nation (Iraq) that had no involvement in attacking our nation.

The other part I can not understand is why Rush feels the need to raise the issue of Obama’s skin color.  This is a question of competence versus incompetence.  Former President G. W. Bush more than proved how incompetent he was.  Whether it is invading a nation based on engineered intelligence, his handling of hurricane Katrina, or his ability to more than double the national debt and have nothing to show for it.

Oh, yeah.  I forgot, Rush is a racist.

I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark. – Rush Limbaugh

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed. – Rush Limbaugh

40 million listeners?  Really?

Randall Thomas

Over the next three and half months we will periodically check on the progress of President Obama’s first 100 days on the job.

On his first full day on the job, President Obama went directly to work.

His first executive order was to freeze the pay on all senior staff members making $100,000 per year or more, including his own.  The order also set stricter rules on lobbyist and more transparancy to the public.

Calls were made to middle-east leaders concerning the situation in Gaza and Israel.

President Obama issued an order directing that all military tribunals be halted for 120 days.

He later met with military leaders and began preliminary plans to withdraw troops from Iraq.

All in all, not a bad first day.