Patterico's Pontifications

5/2/2009

Quote of the Day

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:06 am



“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more [military] commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

26 Responses to “Quote of the Day”

  1. The hypocracy of this administration knows no bounds.

    jwarner (0a2a75) — 5/2/2009 @ 10:15 am

  2. A rough and ready definition of conservatism might boil down to a recognition that “Change,” just for the sake of change, isn’t necessarily the best solution to the human condition. That is to say that it’s okay to recognize that we aren’t the first generation to wrestle with a particular problem, or, more pithily, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

    One of the reasons for treating unlawful combatants as unlawful combatants is because, traditionally, they are … well, unlawful combatants. They, not us, are the ones who have decided that it is okay to operate outside the norms of civilized behavior against states, and not just as criminals acting against other individuals.

    Duh.

    EW1(SG) (5766f7) — 5/2/2009 @ 10:25 am

  3. We need a new acronym to fully describe the partisan hypocrisy.

    Obama is not Bush: OINB. Doesn’t sing.

    Ideas?

    Eric Blair (33cc23) — 5/2/2009 @ 10:32 am

  4. Obama Under No Consistent Edict?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/2/2009 @ 10:34 am

  5. President $hit-Head!…works for me.

    AD - RtR/OS! (0f5224) — 5/2/2009 @ 10:42 am

  6. Well, if RHINO and PUMA have become popular, we need our own to describe this insulting level of hypocrisy (Hope and Change, folks!).

    OUNCE might work, especially given his prior weed smoking days.

    Eric Blair (33cc23) — 5/2/2009 @ 10:47 am

  7. An African-American professor of Constitutional Law explains.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/2/2009 @ 10:57 am

  8. My apologies…I was intemperate above…
    Having reconsidered, my new acronym for Duh-1 is
    PREMF!

    AD - RtR/OS! (0f5224) — 5/2/2009 @ 11:18 am

  9. Kevin Murphy,
    Thanks for the link @ #7 to Dissenting Justice. He’s got some pertinent advice for conservatives:

    While many conservatives passionately reject any role for government in reducing class and other types of inequity, they readily invite the government into areas of other people’s lives in order to regulate personal choices that seem patently inappropriate for governmental intrusion (and certainly inappropriate for a governmental veto). Many social conservatives, for example, vehemently insist that the government alone should decide the conditions under which a woman terminates a pregnancy. They also want the government to dictate whether or not terminally ill patients continue to receive life-sustaining medical treatment against their family members’ or their own wishes. Conservatives have supported making criminals out of people who consent to intimate relationships (sexual or otherwise) with people of the same sex. And they believe that government-waged “wars” can reduce or rid society of drugs, kidnappings, sexual predators, violence, and terrorism.

    If the government can accomplish all of these things better than “the people,” then just maybe the government can do a few things to create conditions in which all people can have economic autonomy and opportunity. Favoring governmental intervention in order to police people, rather than to foster individual autonomy seems far removed from conservatism.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/2/2009 @ 11:26 am

  10. From the article: Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama’s political allies.

    Oh, and also, I’m sure, large protests, followed by calls for the resignation of administration officials.

    Apogee (e2dc9b) — 5/2/2009 @ 11:32 am

  11. That must have been some party last night…
    Still suffering the aftereffects, I see?

    AD - RtR/OS! (0f5224) — 5/2/2009 @ 11:42 am

  12. Obama lied, Garafolo cried.

    Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:13 pm

  13. OUCH! – Obama’s Unending Chain of Hypocrisy

    daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:06 pm

  14. Obama lied, Garafolo cried.

    HA!

    It is the never ending nature of the embarrassments. The hits just keep coming.

    Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:07 pm

  15. Eric Blair:

    Hypocrite-in-Chief or HOTUS?

    Anon (b0f193) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:03 pm

  16. Blameless
    Obama/
    Odious
    Bush
    Syndrome

    Jim Treacher (671d28) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:04 pm

  17. One of the reasons for treating unlawful combatants as unlawful combatants is because, traditionally, they are … well, unlawful combatants. They, not us, are the ones who have decided that it is okay to operate outside the norms of civilized behavior against states, and not just as criminals acting against other individuals.

    I agree.

    There is no reason to change the tradition of dealing with unlawful combatants.

    Conservatives have supported making criminals out of people who consent to intimate relationships (sexual or otherwise) with people of the same sex.

    Did not Thomas Jefferson favor anti-sodomy laws?

    And they believe that government-waged “wars” can reduce or rid society of drugs, kidnappings, sexual predators, violence, and terrorism.

    Nobody chooses to be a victim of kidnapping, sexual predators, violence, or terrorism.

    Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 5/2/2009 @ 5:00 pm

  18. I can’t wait to hear my neighbor, a pacifist who hails from Canada, on this one. He voted for BHO because of the military-tribunals issue.

    Always On Watch (6ff2cf) — 5/2/2009 @ 6:53 pm

  19. The empty suit is still looking for adults for the administration, I see.

    SPQR (b8f1f4) — 5/2/2009 @ 6:54 pm

  20. #17 Michael Ejercito:

    Did not Thomas Jefferson favor anti-sodomy laws?

    I don’t know, did he?

    Societal norms are not immutable, nor should they be when a change is beneficial to society like recognizing the rights of all to be part of and contributors to society; the civil rights movement against segregation by race in this country a sterling example.

    EW1(SG) (5766f7) — 5/2/2009 @ 7:27 pm

  21. Bush’s third term!

    davidt (0c740c) — 5/2/2009 @ 7:39 pm

  22. During the campaign, at a point when Obama was serially “clarifying” himself, some wags began talking about What Obama Really Meant.

    The acronym works pretty well.

    Mars vs Hollywood (788077) — 5/3/2009 @ 3:11 am

  23. While all this vacillation and flip-flopping is going on, I just know that this idiot will be re-elected to a second term. Scary crap no?
    Well, we need to wrap our heads around it. That is unless we stop acting like 2000-2008 dems and starting getting our house in order.

    pitchforksntorches (4dd8c4) — 5/3/2009 @ 5:21 am

  24. […] On second thought: Obama considers changing mind on military commissions for Guantanamo detainees. (Hat Tip: Patterico.) […]

    The Press Loves Obama « Adam’s Blog (c67638) — 5/3/2009 @ 8:12 am

  25. Well, we need to wrap our heads around it. That is unless we stop acting like 2000-2008 dems and starting getting our house in order.

    There is no “we.” If you want to do something, do it. Lead by example.

    Jim Treacher (796deb) — 5/3/2009 @ 1:31 pm

  26. Not too many from either party mind this….
    http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/07

    blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/8/2009 @ 12:49 am


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0757 secs.