Where you at?


Dick Cheney? Sarah Palin? Mitt Romney? Rudy Giuliani? John McCain?

All of y’all—where you at? Haven’t heard your snarky, America-is-less-safe-than-ever blather this morning. Or yesterday. Or the day before. Seriously, gimme a call—haven’t heard much.

Oh, did you guys happen to catch this headline in today’s New York Times: IN BLOW TO TALIBAN, 2 MORE SENIOR LEADERS ARE ARRESTED. Story is here. This, of course, happened two days after the arrest of Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s military commander.

Again, where y’all at? Holla!


Truth is, victories come and victories go; important arrests are inevitably followed by horrible acts. It’s the reality of terrorism, and why this isn’t a war, but an ongoing struggle/fight that will likely exist until the planet melts. But what troubles me—truly troubles me—is the far right’s continued effort to portray the Obama Administration as an enabler of terror, when most results point to the opposite conclusion.

If politicians weren’t supposed to publicly rip the president when George W. Bush was in office, why is it OK now? Especially when Obama seems to be handling things awfully well …

15 thoughts on “Where you at?”

  1. right wing response from your readers who hate you but still visit this site everyday: “who the hell cares about al quaeda and terrorism… obama reads from a teleprompter!”

  2. Giuliani’s boy, Bernie Kerik, sentenced to four years in prison for multiple felonies. Almost was the chief of homeland security, on Rudy’s urging. Perhaps another reason for silence?

  3. Less than 2 months ago, someone tried to blow himself up on an airplane over our country, only failing to execute because of faulty technology, and we’re supposed to feel safer because two taliban leaders, who will be replaced, have been arrested? I agree that the criticism of Obama on the War on Terror (oops, don’t call it that) is a bit ridiculous, but so is the cheerleading.

  4. i’ll keep my eyes n ears peeled for the first liberal democrat who gave credit to the bush admin. let me know jeff when u hear from any. that whole 8 yrs was pretty damn quiet.

    dont worry too jeff. just because they arrested 2 guys doesnt mean we are safe. obama will just give them rights and try them in courts here

  5. jason is the kind of guy who gives liberals a terrible name.

    why would i hate anyone especially jeff? i may disagree with him but hate? i leave that to people like you jason.

  6. I totally agree. The only thing wrong about this post is the assumption that those so-called leaders operate in the same plane of reality that you and I do. To Palin, Cheney, etc down is up, facts are pesky nuisances to be ignored, Obama is a socialist, etc.

    Good times.

  7. Obama could personally capture Bin Laden and the Republicans would hate him.

    Pay them no mind. They are stinking hypocrite scumbags.

  8. Dave…

    There are a couple of bullshit hypocrisies when you say that ‘Obama will just give them rights’.

    The Republicans tried terrorists in civilian courts under Bush too. Richard Reid, shoebomber, read Miranda Rights and tried him in a civilian court. Zacarias Moussaoui, who planned a second wave of plane attacks, had a civilian trial on U.S. soil as well.
    They both got life sentences under the Bush administration.

    I applauded this when it happened.

    Yet, people are going apeshit over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a 9/11 mastermind, being tried in NYC. Worst-case scenario, he faces a life sentence, and at best, he faces the death penalty.
    Of course, the Democrats are pussies and are going to back away from having it in NYC.

    Yet, the same people that praised the Shoebomber and Moussaoui being tried on U.S. soil under Bush (see: Rudy Giuliani) are spinning it around under Obama. Ditto for the Christmas Day attacks and him facing a civlian trial.

  9. It was a trap, Marty.

    Had Obama decided to do military tribunals, then the Repbulicans would have said, “Well, Bush did it the other way, and he kept us safe… How long before you put Americans in military tribunals?”

    What sucks is the media, in its never-ending quest to avoid being called “liberal” by the Republicans, refuse to point that out.

  10. @Marty:

    The Moussaoui and Shoebomber examples are favorites of supporters of the NYC circus, but such examples conveniently ignore everything that transpired from 9/11 until the present day. Those trials commenced almost immediately after September 11th, before military tribunals had been effectively established. Once said tribunals had been established, they were agreed to be the more appropriate venue for trying enemy combatants, including terrorists.

    The purpose of the appeal to those examples is to try to highlight supposed Republican hypocrisy and knee-jerk anti-Obamaism. Unfortunately, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Had a legitimate military tribunal been set up in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and had the Bush administration then elected to try these men in civilian courts, then Democrats would have an argument. As it is, you do not.

  11. It actually is a very valid comparison and there is a great argument to be had.

    Statistics show that since 2001, 151 suspects were tried were convicted on terrorism charges in civilian courts. Nobody was holding protests over the way that was happening. It was that they were being held, without due process of the law, in Guanatanamo Bay.
    The people for torture, Guanatanamo Bay, and things of that ilk are on the wrong side of history as they ignored the Geneva Convention (see: Dick Cheney).

    Everybody opposed in what I’ve seen and read on this matter have been doing a smear job on Eric Holder, Obama, and have severely ill-informed and misconstrued facts at their disposal.
    They’ve done a great job since their pressure on this matter will have the matter take place in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court. This is wrong and it’s a loss for the American people to show that justice can be served HERE and it is a loss for the world and our allies that trust in us. For once, I’d like to see Obama fight hard for it and push it through.

    You also honestly think that most of the people against Holder now know that terrorists were tried in civilian courts? I don’t. How about other terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber? They had civilian trials and got the death penalty and a life sentence respectively. I have no complaints whatsoever about that.

    The politicians opposed seemed to live in a society where they encourage a “hang ’em high” mindset, undermine the American court systems, and that they ARE the protectors. They don’t seem to have any respect for the law and almost seem to undermine it every step of the way. What the hell does that say?

  12. People braying against civilian courts and for military tribunals do not “seem” to have no respect for the law, nor do they “almost seem” to undermine it every step of the way. They in fact DO have no respect for the law and DO undermine it every step of the way. No need to try to be polite about this, Marty. As for military tribunals becoming the “agreed” method for dealing with enemy combatants and terrorists, Classicist, precisely who “agreed” that this was “the appropriate venue”? The same people who totally effed up Iraq in perpetuity? Yeah, their judgment is impeccable.

  13. Dave: the whole 8 years was “pretty damn quiet”??? Er, I seem to remember a certain day in September that happened during those 8 years.

Leave a Reply