Just curious.  Why isn't it a big joke the way former VP Cheney is going all over television and radio defending the Bush administration's actions with prisoners (desensitizing potential jurors) like it was when former Governor Blagojevich traveled across the networks defending his administration?  He was accused of trying to influence any potential jurors to his trial - remember?  Isn't that what Cheney and the GOP are doing right now?

I have to admit, I was one of those making fun of Blago.  In his defense however, he was a governor TWICE elected (which Cheney was not - he was nominated by Bush), the most recent being just a couple years ago.  So why was he laughed at when defending himself and Cheney is being taken seriously?

How many recorded interviews are out there showing how Cheney has been wrong nearly 95% of the time with respects to WMD, Iraq, Afghanistan, war, prisoners and even the economy, etc..  Why is he being listened to - when it was under his and Bush's administration that we experienced our worst ever terrorist attack?

Why aren't the media saying NO MORE Mr Cheney -- You don't know what you are talking about?  Anybody know?

Yesterday we were by President Barack Obama that he has decided to fight the release of more photos from our war prisons:

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama declared Wednesday he would try to block the court-ordered release of photos showing U.S. troops abusing prisoners, abruptly reversing his position out of concern the pictures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today the CIA turns down former Vice President's request to release two memos proving his point that torture saved lived:

The CIA said in a press release that it cannot comply with the request from former Vice President Dick Cheney to declassify and release interrogation documents.

The process for Mandatory Declassification Review is governed by Executive Order 12958, as amended. That Order excludes from review information that is the subject of pending litigation. The two documents that former Vice President Cheney sought contain information that falls into that category."

Am I nuts or is there a connection between these two stories? 

Could it be just coincidental that President Obama completely reverses course by deciding not to release the photos that he promised to release just a month ago, and instead decides to 'litigate' those same prison photos.  The next day we're informed that the CIA has turned down Cheney's request because the memo's he seeks are subject to litigation.

Will these memos of Cheney's be used during the litigation of the prison photos?  Or are the photos and memos just more pieces of the complete puzzle? 

Didn't Speaker of the House Pelosi just come out today claiming that the CIA lied to Congress?  Didn't she say something about the timing of briefings and timing of when waterboarding actually began happening?  Didn't she also demand the release of any and all memos from those briefings.

Didn't former Senator Bob Graham come out today saying that the CIA gave him false information about when he was briefed about interrogations in 2002?  They had their dates completely wrong and Graham was able to prove that -- which leaves to question their so-called facts about any briefings and who said or heard what.

Is my conspiracy mind working in overdrive or could it be that our Attorney General is seriously thinking of indicting somebody (persons) for war crimes and lying to Congress about when those crimes happened and/or began?  Is he accumulating the Vice President's own claims and confessions, the Republican claims, along with any leaks of information and memos already released -- to find reasonable cause to indict?

Come on people with more smarts than me -- what is really going on with these two stories?

I'm curious if those of you that support what we did to prisoners during the past 7 years and the keeping of additional photos of abuse and/or torture out of the hands of the media -- would have had the same feelings about the now famous pictures and stories of genocide, experimenting and gassing of innocent men, women and children during the WWII? 

Would you have said no to the people that demanded a record of all the abuse and killings during that time too?  It WAS war after all - war is hell - as some of you say.  I'm betting that there were many in Germany that wished the world hadn't see what happened back then because it's embarrassing or shameful.

Thankfully, somebody made sure those pictures, shoes and stories came to light for those in the future to read and look at.  Hopefully because we've all grown up seeing those famous photos of children naked standing in line to be gassed or starving to death -- that will never be allowed to happen again.

Sometimes we need to report what happens to help stop future people from doing them.  HISTORY is our only true lesson.  Whether that history is two days ago or 50 years ago.

Here we go again -- hiding facts from the world (especially the American people) about what was done IN OUR NAME by the Bush/Cheney administration to prisoners of war.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is seeking to block the immediate release of hundreds of photos showing U.S. personnel allegedly abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An Obama administration official said Wednesday that the president told his legal advisers last week that releasing the photos would endanger U.S. troops. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

Obama wants the issue to go back to the courts, although federal appeals judges have ruled the photos could be released.

I'm sorry Mr. President but while you may have good intentions, I have to disagree.  If we Americans claim that we are a nation of moral values and higher standards then most; then all the facts need to be released for all the world to see.

First of all, if we hide away the facts about the way our leadership treated prisoners, how on earth do we have the right to criticize any other nation such as North Korea, Iran, Yemen or Saudi Arabia about the way they treat their prisoners?

Secondly, if these photos are 'that bad' then perhaps it's conclusive proof (besides the confessions of form Vice President Dick Cheney and others that we tortured, "but it was legal", they said) that the Bush/Cheney administration did indeed allow the torturing of prisoners.

Release the photos President Obama, with the stipulation that you will be recommending to your Attorney General that he take steps to hire a special prosecutor to investigate any and all possible war crimes committed during the past 7 years.

While I don't wish harm to any of our military folks, they are already in harms way, whether you release the photos or not.  Now that it's been mentioned in the news that you'd rather 'not' release them -- this will still anger American haters and put our military in more danger because they'll know we are hiding our worse sins. 

The bad guys will hear those words Mr. President and know that we did indeed do terribly wrong things to our prisoners.  They will repeat this story across their countries trying to recruit more terrorists.

Showing the pictures would just be additional way for Americans to come face to face with our sins and it could also tell our enemies and allies that we are ashamed of doing these things and will never do them again.  It also tells them that we don't HIDE from our sins.

Just a quick question.  Has anybody else noticed that when form Vice President Cheney mentions that there's not been another attack in the United States for almost 8 years that he QUALIFIES that statement almost every time with the word 'Major'?  What exactly does that mean?  Did we get attacked and the story was kept quiet? 

We all know that in the beginning, at least the first 5 years, the media was pretty much backing everything the Bush administration did or said.  You might remember how they would use the administrations talking points each and every Sunday morning on the talk shows.

So, in order to avoid panic, did the media (if they knew) keep quiet about an attack?  To give an example of how they worked for the administration and not for their readers/listeners, remember the famous CIA agent's name being leaked out and how one person in the media even went to jail to keep their secrets.

Perhaps somebody needs to ask the former vice president if he knows of ANY attacks in the United States or it's territories since 9/11?

Today, the Washington Post reported that "eleven weeks after Congress settled on a stimulus package that provided $135 billion to limit layoffs in state governments, many states are finding that the funds are not enougha nd are moving to lay off thousands of public employees." Washington state will be forced to layoff several thousand educators and Massachusetts which "cut 1,000 positions late last year, just announced 250 layoffs, with more likely to come soon."

Apparently missing the article's point -- that the stimulus should have included more budget stabilization funding for states -- the House GOP featured the article on their website today, suggesting that the report vindicated their unanimous opposition to the recovery act. Later in the day, they linked to the article on twitter and gleefully quipped, "Look how many layoffs the stimulus created"....

The layoffs are one early indication of how the stimulus funding could be coming up short against the economic downturn. As the stimulus plan was being drawn up, there was agreement among the White House, congressional Democrats and many economists that a key goal was to keep states from making big layoffs at a time when 700,000 Americans were losing their jobs every month.

The House passed a stimulus bill with $87 billion in extra Medicaid funding for states, as well as $79 billion in "stabilization" money to plug gaps in states' budgets for education and other areas.

But in the Senate, the stabilization funding was cut by $40 billion to secure the support of the three Republicans who were needed for a filibuster-proof 60 votes -- Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- as well as to gain the support of conservative Democrats such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. The senators wanted to reduce the package to less than $800 billion, and several wanted to make room for a $70 billion patch of the alternative minimum tax.

Can you believe these people, they are claiming that Obama and the Democrat's Recovery and Reinvestment (stimulus) bill actually CAUSED layoffs.

Do these people have any brains at all or are they simply insulting the intelligence of the American people hoping that they will actually 'fall for this claim'?

From the very beginning Obama and the Democrats have stated the stimulus would either create or SAVE 3.5 - 4 million jobs.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Advocating preventive care and streamlining administrative costs are among the steps being promised by the health care industry to help cut $2 trillion in health care expenses over the next decade.

A number of leading industry trade groups -- including those representing insurers, doctors, health care workers and drugmakers -- will make that pledge to President Obama later Monday...

An AdvaMed official, who spoke on condition of not being directly quoted, said the proposals will focus on how the industry can better use technology to replace more expensive procedures and remove unnecessary hospitalization.

These two things bother me and I think perhaps they should bother the rest of you. 

If you recently or have had surgery or a procedure done, or you've had a sick person in the family in the hospital or visiting your local clinic, you probably already have found yourself amazed at how quickly the doctors send you or the family member home after a procedure or sickness in the hospital. 

Major surgeries that use to require 3-7 days stay in the hospital are now sent home in a day or two,  requiring a visiting nurse and possibly home care to come by each day to check on you.  I fail to see the savings here.  Except for saving up a room for somebody else.

Like me you may have even seen how they work their way up with special technology to investigate the illness.  Which in my view is a waste of money. 

First they do the on-site  manual look at you, then they send you for an xray, then they send you for a broad ultra-sound view, then a more narrowed down view and finally to a CAT or MRI or both.  Each time you have to have another person, another room, another machine to work on you.  When if they had just done the MRI to begin with, it might have saved thousands of dollars.

What are these places promising President Obama and what is he allowing in exchange?  Are they going to send you home hours after a heart surgery now?  Will they require you go to the clinic instead of getting nursing care at home after surgery? 

Exactly what is it they are promising to do to save money and if it's that easy, why didn't they begin those savings years ago?

What if you don't follow the new rules with preventive health care (keep eating, smoking) -- do you end up paying more for your insurance?

All these things need to be answered before I sign onto any plan.

 

Earlier this month members of Congress were discussing the process that President Barack Obama would be taking to pick a replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

 

 

Senator Orrin Hatch said, he's worried the president might pick a judicial activist instead of someone who bases decisions on the law.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah says Obama's comment last week about naming a justice who understands Americans' problems and has empathy for people is "code" for putting in place a person who legislates from the bench.

They are concerned about a Supreme Court justice 'making laws' instead of interpreting them. 

 

For this reason alone you would think they would also be concerned about former President George W Bush's White House lawyers that decided what torture was and what was not.  They basically 'made' laws that fit the administration's goals or priorities.  One of those lawyers is currently serving on the Federal bench.

 

They ignored the Geneva Convention and agreements that past presidents (Ronald Reagan 1984) have made with regards to torturing and handling prisoners.

 

Perhaps someone should ask Senator Hatch if he thinks Bush's lawyers 'made' laws or interpreted them?

VP Cheney was on Face the Nation this past Sunday:

Cheney vigorously defended the Bush administration's torture policies and his belief that by rejecting them,

SCHIEFFER: Would you go back and talk to the Congress?

CHENEY: Certainly. I've made it very clear that I feel very strongly that what we did here was exactly the right thing to do. And if I don't speak out, then where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have free run, and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth. So it's important -- it's important that we...

SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?

CHENEY: I'd have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn't be out here today if I didn't feel comfortable talking about what we're doing publicly.

As usual Cheney is qualifying what he will or will not do.  What is it Mr. Vice President, are you 'for' getting the truth out or 'against' doing so?  Bob Schieffer didn't ask you if you felt 'comfortable' talking about torturing prisoners, he asked if you'd testify under oath about it.   As usual you evaded the question.

Who cares what kind of precedent there is, just so long as you tell the truth and nothing but the truth - so help you God.

A couple of weeks ago you wanted all the documents/memos released about the treatment of prisoners, the torturing of them and the results of those actions, now you are qualifying what you will or will not do pertaining to get those facts out?

 

"I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said. "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."

While the media of course is jumping on the Limbaugh and Powell comments you made, the more important story was your admitting that President George W Bush himself authorized this torture and therefore committed war crimes Sunday:

 

 

SCHIEFFER: How much did President Bush know specifically about the methods that were being used?

We know that you-- and you have said-- that you approved this...

 

CHENEY: Right.

 

SCHIEFFER: ... somewhere down the line. Did President Bush know everything you knew?

 

CHENEY: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew -- he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it.

 

SCHIEFFER: You said -- you said just a moment ago as you were talking about this, that -- you said that we have to realize what was at stake and we have to realize the circumstances. Do you have any regrets whatsoever about any of the methods that were taken? Any of the things that were used back in those days? Because there's no question the country -- it was a different time. The country's mood wasdifferent. We had just been -- something had happened here that had never happened before.

 

In retrospect, you -- years have passed. You're now out of office. Do you think we should have done some things differently back then, or do you have any regrets about any of it?

 

CHENEY: No regrets. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives

 

So, Mr Vice President, if everything you did was legal and proper, you should have no qualms testifying under oath in front of Congress and the American people you profess to care about.

 

If Congress allows you to testify without raising your right hand and the other on the Bible (which I think we be a huge mistake), at the very least they should require that you answer all questions in front of the American people and not behind some closed doors like you and the president did after 9/11.