April 25, 2009
Obama's Jerry Ford Moment

Never post after 1AM. To the readers who noticed Obama was not mentioned in my "Obama's Jerry Ford Moment" post, my apologies, I left off the last half of the post. The complete article is below.

wep

Jerry Ford assumed the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon from office. Ford enjoyed public good will for the class he showed in the transition. But the Nixon haters were not satisfied with the indictments and convictions of several top Nixon aides. They wanted "Tricky Dick" humiliated by a trial and a jail cell. President Ford believed it would be a long drawn out extremely divisive political saga that would paralyze his administration's ability to deal with the post Viet Nam and economic issues facing the United States in the late 1970s. Taking his own counsel, he issued a full pardon for any illegal acts Nixon may have committed while President. It was a politically courageous call and it cost him the 1976 election.

Today it is the Bush haters, almost exclusively from the Left, who lust for blood. There are calls for indictments of the attorneys whose legal opinions justifying limited forms of coercion (torture to some) sends the ACLU and their ilk into spasms of outrage. But the real targets are Bush and Cheney.

President Obama gives a mixed message on the issue. One day he wants to move forward and not look back and the next he's open to investigating the alleged sins of the Bush administration. Obama has a very ambitious agenda and he cannot afford major distractions on his way to the 2012 elections. He has a decision to make. If he does not control the baying from the vengeance crowd, he will face his Jerry Ford moment.

Posted by warrenpeterson at April 25, 2009 12:33 AM | Email This
Comments
1. They wanted "Tricky Dick" humiliated by a trial and a jail cell.

Yes, that's called "being tough on crime". Have you a problem with lawbreakers landing behind bars?

Taking his own counsel, he issued a full pardon for any illegal acts Nixon may have committed while President.

Ford has the distinction of being the only person who ever ascended to the Presidency without being elected to either it or to the Vice-Presidency. (Nixon's felonious understudy, culture warrior Sprio Agnew, had been forced from office already.) Nixon thus had his hand-picked successor pardon him, an arrangement which was blatantly corrupt -- not courageous.

Oh, by the way -- what's the modern situation? Which filthy felon does the author desperately want President Obama to pardon?

Posted by: tensor on April 25, 2009 01:00 AM
2. tensor showing us how uninformed he/she is says: "Which filthy felon does the author desperately want President Obama to pardon?"...

Pick a tax cheat, any tax cheat in the present Obama administration...


Posted by: juandos on April 25, 2009 01:08 AM
3. Perhaps Obama should take this guy's advice:

"I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture..."

- Official proclamation by President Bush, June 26, 2003.

Posted by: Robert on April 25, 2009 06:31 AM
4. You should remove Obama from the headline. He's not in this story.

Posted by: Ron Hebron on April 25, 2009 06:59 AM
5. You should remove Obama from the headline. He's not in this story.

Posted by: Ron Hebron on April 25, 2009 07:00 AM
6. So, dime bag, I guess when the empty suited idiot you support hires a felon to be Tresury Secretary or Trade Representative, they're not so "filthy?"

Ford's actions required a courage that leftists like ten cents simply can't fathom.

Hypocrite.

Posted by: Hinton on April 25, 2009 07:54 AM
7. So, dime bag, I guess when the empty suited idiot you support hires a felon to be Treasury Secretary or Trade Representative, they're not so "filthy?"

Ford's actions required a courage that leftists like ten cents simply can't fathom.

Hypocrite.

Posted by: Hinton on April 25, 2009 07:55 AM
8. What a ridiculous headline, Obama isn't even mentioned in the article.

Posted by: Karl on April 25, 2009 08:32 AM
9. I can almost guarantee there will be no hearings on the waterboarding. A large number of Democrat and Republican legislators are now admitting they did indeed know about the waterboarding and said nothing, including Pelosi, however much she doth protest. That would make them all complicit, no? They could even be charged!!!! I don't think they intend to go there.

Posted by: katomar on April 25, 2009 08:46 AM
10. Wouldn't it be Gerry Ford? Gerald, not Jerome?

Posted by: jimg on April 25, 2009 09:16 AM
11. Katomar, the democrats will completely control the hearings. They get to bring the witnesses that they want to bring and keep out other witnesses. There might be no criminal trial on waterboarding (mainly because there were no laws broken), but there will be hearings. There will also be a special prosecutor who will bring criminal charges against higher up Bush admin. officials, those charges will be perjury or obstruction of justice, not on breaking laws related to torture.

The first hearings will be sub-committee hearings in the next couple of months where the Dems will decide that all people who gave indirect support to govt. officials that begat the 'torture' must be investigated. This will lead to a congressional subpeona of the phone, e-mail and mailing lists of all Republican donors to be promptly given to the DNC.

Full blown congressional hearings will occur during the summer of 2010 in order to fully show to the American mid-term election voter how evil George Bush was and that they should definitely vote against Bush, yet again, by voting democrat in the upcoming election.

Posted by: Doug on April 25, 2009 09:17 AM
12. Obama would not have the courage to forgoe a prosecution of Bush, because politcally, it is more about him than the country. If going after Bush or his senior advisors will help Obama push forward his agenda - then he'll go after them. If he sees it as getting in the way of implementing his agenda, then he will try to put it "in the past", but he will reserve the right to bring it up again if any of his agenda items hits a roadblock.

Ford really did want to "moveon", and did so.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 25, 2009 09:22 AM
13. A POSSIBLE FUTURE JERRY FORD MOMENT

Since the American People have found out that Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has been lying to us regarding his citizenship status, and is not a "natural born citizen", which our Constitution requires, he has resigned in disgrace. And to prevent any "long drawn out extremely divisive political saga" and to prevent any criminal action which would politically embarrass individuals & deter any necessary actions to run the government efficiently, President Biden has issued a full pardon for himself & all persons involved in the 2008 election

Posted by: susu on April 25, 2009 09:33 AM
14. Juandos,

I think that would qualify as "checkmate"...:)

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 25, 2009 10:48 AM
15. I had figured it was about the torture. The stories are now out, about the pressure brought to "prove" the fabricated Saddam/9-11 connection, the nonexistent WMDs he had, and the common abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib. It's all illegal, it was terrible foreign policy, and we're going to see if we meet a test of national character. President Bush, and his fellow torture freaks are absolutely despised by the 78% of Americans who are not GOP dead-enders, and President Obama is far too smart a politician to pander to such dead-enders.

Posted by: tensor on April 25, 2009 12:32 PM
16. Wow - invasion of the trolls!

Posted by: Crusader on April 25, 2009 01:21 PM
17. Damn, ten cents, did you OD on your scum-sucking slime meds today? Your filthy felon hypocrisy is noted, dimebag, and like all of your incoherent babble, you make no sense.

And as for "dead enders" who better to know than a fringe-left whack job such as yourself?

Posted by: hinton on April 25, 2009 01:27 PM
18. tensor - you realize that no one other then moonbats care about Saddam/9-11/WmD bullshit?

Posted by: Crusader on April 25, 2009 01:28 PM
19. in 2012 there will be some new felons for the republicans to jail...Pelosi,Reid,Obama,Axlrod,Dead fish Rahm,Fwank and Dodd for starters...all have violated the law all will be jailed...on 4/20/09 Comrade Obama committed treason and will be held accountable for it..maybe even before 2012 if we are hit with a terrorist attack (god forbid)

Posted by: hellpig on April 25, 2009 01:43 PM
20. hellpig - what crimes did they commit?

Posted by: Crusader on April 25, 2009 01:46 PM
21. Ten cents,

Nearly 6 in ten say the whole thing is purely a political witch hunt, and should be dropped immediately.

I guess you like being part of the angry Left?

And when will you call for the resignation and trial of Nancy Pelosi who not only knew of the supposed "torture", but just two days ago lied through her teeth about her knowledge?

Or is your indignation only directed at the GOP?

So much for uniting the country...

HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 25, 2009 01:48 PM
22. for starters they all failed to uphold their sworn oaths...everyone who signed the scamulus bill is guilty of generational theft.....Reid and Pelosi will be tried for treason as will Comrade Obama giving.Giving the enemies our CIA secrets is treason PERIOD

Besides Pelosi will get dragged down if they even try and have a witch hunt trail about enhanced interogations....she is a BOLD FACED LIAR...well all dems are what else is new...Comrade Obama lied to get elected and ran as a liberal on the dem ticket...

Posted by: hellpig on April 25, 2009 01:54 PM
23. Damn, ten cents, did you OD on your scum-sucking slime meds today? Your filthy felon hypocrisy is noted, dimebag, and like all of your incoherent babble, you make no sense.

And as for "dead enders" who better to know than a fringe-left whack job such as yourself?

Posted by: hinton on April 25, 2009 02:02 PM
24. hellpig - you would try your political enemies for policy differences...

Posted by: Crusader on April 25, 2009 02:03 PM
25. My wife got me hooked watching "The Tudors" on Showtime.

Why is it I can't help thinking of Obama and his far left buddies when I see Henry The Eighth and Thomas Cromwell hacking off the heads of those English who refused to renounce the Catholic faith?

The left would chop our heads off with glee if they could get away with it. If you don't believe me take a peek sometime at HA, Kos, or the Huffington Post. These people would be right at home burning witches in Salem.

For the moment they must content themselves with brainwashing our children, lying to us about who they are, taking our liberty from us, and banishing conservatives from the airwaves.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 25, 2009 02:20 PM
26. what is good for the goose is good for the gander....so it is OK for the Dems and I say Dems lightly I believe there are no dems in washington.To politically go after Bush's policies.

HELL yes if they go forward I say in 2012 we have trials for them all.

and actually it wont be political to go after Pelosi Reid and Comrade Obama for treason...treason isnt a policy

Posted by: hellpig on April 25, 2009 02:24 PM
27. I stand corrected from what I have seen these past 100 days it seems treason is Comrade Obama's policy

Posted by: hellpig on April 25, 2009 02:27 PM
28. Bill C OMG love the Tudors ,sucks there are only 10 episodes per season and you gotta wait a full year or more for the next season..same with DEXTER Great show..just too few and too far apart..

Posted by: hellpig on April 25, 2009 02:32 PM
29.
Which filthy felon does the author desperately want President Obama to pardon?

Clinton?

But if the fascist go after Bush and the administration that has kept our country safe in wartime, it will end up as civil war. And the fascists will lose this one....

Posted by: iconoclast on April 25, 2009 09:10 PM
30. We have credible evidence that a crime has been committed. Therefore, we investigate. This is called "the rule of law."

They wanted "Tricky Dick" humiliated by a trial and a jail cell.

Their motivations do not matter. Only the evidence matters.

President Ford believed it would be a long drawn out extremely divisive political saga that would paralyze his administration's ability to deal with the post Viet Nam and economic issues facing the United States in the late 1970s.

If he honestly thought he wasn't up to the task of seeing the laws properly enforced, then he should not have taken a job with that description.

Today it is the Bush haters, almost exclusively from the Left, who lust for blood.

The identity of the citizens who demand justice does not matter. Only the evidence matters.

There are calls for indictments of the attorneys whose legal opinions justifying limited forms of coercion (torture to some) sends the ACLU and their ilk into spasms of outrage.

Torture is illegal. If they told others it was legal to torture, then they aided and abetted crimes. They should be investigated. The ACLU is not relevant; only the evidence matters. (I thought conservatives criticized the ACLU for being soft on crime, not hard on it?)

But the real targets are Bush and Cheney.

The President's job description requires him to see our laws faithfully executed. If he ordered lawbreaking, that would be both a justification to have removed him from office, and now to investigate his possible crimes. (I thought conservatives admired Presidential sentiments of the form, "The Buck Stops Here"?)

One day he wants to move forward and not look back and the next he's open to investigating the alleged sins of the Bush administration.

He can do both, as our Attorney General actually investigates and prosecutes; the President merely needs to ensure the Attorney General has means and motivation to do so. Remember a key moment in the criminal Nixon's downfall came when he fired the Attorney General for investigating lawbreaking.

He has a decision to make. If he does not control the baying from the vengeance crowd, he will face his Jerry Ford moment.

Are you advocating President Obama politically interfere in a criminal investigation? That would be obstruction of justice, itself a crime.

Posted by: tensor on April 26, 2009 01:19 AM
31. Which, exactly, is the law that President Bush broke? And whose definition of torture are you using?

And finally, is it just two of you that the WSDCC are paying to troll on this blog all day long? What a waste of your union members' hard-earned money that you forcibly take from them.

And I wonder, do forced union dues qualify as torture under your definition?

Posted by: cryptometaphor on April 26, 2009 06:34 AM
32. cryptometaphor, I've long been more than suspicious that certain of our esteemed trolls are paid operatives. The same folks that call talk radio and claim they are "conservatives" and "war veterans" and then launch into their scripted Democrat talking points.

Funny isn't it that leftists feel compelled to lie and deceive on a very regular basis. Maybe it isn't as much funny as it is downright creepy.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 26, 2009 08:20 AM
33. Ten cents wrote:

We have credible evidence that a crime has been committed. Therefore, we investigate. This is called "the rule of law." ...


...Torture is illegal. If they told others it was legal to torture, then they aided and abetted crimes.


And here is the problem. What was used on those three individuals (yes, only 3 were waterboarded) is not considered torture by the US. So again, what law was broken? Can you point to it? What as the "controlling legal authority" so demanded by Algore?


What we have IS a witch hunt, because the Obama regime needs to score political points. It will change the definitions that had stood for decades. And he is more than willing to destroy any and all just to maintain his overall polling numbers.


And why doesn't the Obamassiah answer Cheney's call and release the documents showing the information gained by such interrogation techniques? Afraid to turn that 60%+ who oppose the Obamassiah in his actions regarding these techniques into a 90%+ against?


And we still have not seen you or your Slavery Party Marxist friends call for the resignation and trial of Nancy Pelosi who knew of these techniques in 2002, acquiesced to their use, and now has PROVABLY LIED in trying to cover her own bony rear...


Or is prosecution only good for your political opponents? After all, uncle Joe or father Mao would be proud of that move!


Go ahead, CALL HER OUT BY NAME...


But you won't, because she's part of your triune god - Obama/Pelosi/Reid - in front of whom your prostrate and genuflect.


HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 26, 2009 08:58 AM
34.
#6 hinton "empty suited idiot" You mean Bush right?

#12 southernroots is exactly right. If going after Bush is the best thing for America Obama will. If getting us health care we can afford, and an energy policy where someone other than Exxon has a say can't get done while prosecuting Bush's crimes, then the Bush Gang will get away for now.

#13 susu you are a lunatic.

#17 = hinton = dead ender. Sorry buddy. Reality is on the other side...

#18 you are right Crusader. Many don't care if our president lies us into war. Makes up fake threats like mushroom clouds to terrorize our own citizens. Boo!!!

#29 Bush has kept us safe? So Al Qaeda really did try to attack us after we pulled out of Saudi Arabia like Bin Laden demanded? I don't mean the pizza guys but real Al Qaeda. So iconclast. How many warnings did Bush ignore before 9-11? Hundreds? Thousands?

#30 tensor. Put me down as a Bush hater!

#32 Bill. Lefties lie? We don't have to lie. Go to Dailykos.com and read about what the Dems really knew, and what they could have done about torture. Turn your radio off Rush and onto reality. My biggest problem with the dems is the fact that they never went after the crimes of the Bush Gang, and still may not. And to think they spent 66 million tax payers dollars on the White Water investigation. Sick.

If Nixon went to jail, Bush would never have terrorized America.


Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on April 26, 2009 09:06 AM
35. Uh, no, factless. I really don't believe dime bag ever supported Bush.

I mean that racist bigot, anti-American empty suit that you and the rest of your posse supported for President.

There. Glad I could clarify this to a denominator that even YOU could understand.

Since you asked, moron.

Posted by: Hinton on April 26, 2009 09:23 AM
36. Bill. Lefties lie? We don't have to lie.

Then why do you do it so much?

That's the most bizarre aspect of the fringe left. Whack jobs like you CLAIM you don't have to lie, but I, personally, have busted you twice on this very board for doing that very thing.

Odd and rather hypocritical that, factless. You stand as living proof that there's no lie you won't tell, no fact you won't twist, no effort you won't make, no matter how false, to support your bitch.

Posted by: Hinton on April 26, 2009 09:27 AM
37. Factless,

Where's your statement calling for the arrest and prosecution of Pelosi for the very same actions you're accusing President Bush of doing?

Where's your statement calling for the arrest and prosecution of Feinstein, or Rangel, or Geithner, or Sebelius, or Sims, or any of the Obama cabal for their admitted breaking of the law?

Your selective outrage marks you as a tool of the left, a good little Slave dancing to the tune his masters call!

How's that HOPE AND CHANGE working out for you?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 26, 2009 09:54 AM
38. Hinton, I've often wondered why leftists constantly lie. It's kind of a chicken/egg question.

Does being on the left cause a person to lie? Or does leftist ideology simply attract the kind of individuals who lie?

One of their lies (which they've told since the 2004 Kerry Campaign) was that we are in "the worst economy since the Great Depression". Funny isn't it that we don't hear that from the Democrats or their media enablers now that Obama is President.

We don't hear much about all that oil the left said we went to war for in Iraq ,either. And does anyone remember before the Iraq war how the left lied about how the "Bush Sanctions" (actually UN sanctions), were starving Iraqi children?

Then there is the biggest lie of all, that the world is teetering on the precipice of catastrophe from man-made "global warming". Brought to you by leftist liars that live in huge mansions and fly in private carbon spewing jets.

You aren't going to get the truth from people that are so mixed up that they idolize murderous cop killers and thugs like Che Guevarra.

I had my own gotcha moment just this week. An old leftist friend was "offended" when I opined that he was a liberal in an e-mail conversation a couple years ago. He was all worked up that I would dare to try and "pigeonhole" his political perspective. On his Facebook page he lists his politics as "progressive". Gee, what a surprise!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 26, 2009 10:11 AM
39. Shine a little light of truth on them Dan and they disappear. It works nearly every time.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 26, 2009 03:49 PM
40. I can see that the person (a term I use loosely since being a real person assumes the ability to think & understand) calling him/her self tensor is just rife with delusions: "The stories are now out, about the pressure brought to "prove" the fabricated Saddam/9-11 connection"...

Hmmm, which Bush administration official or Bush himself actually said that Saddam had something to do with 9-11?

We do know that the party of the Seditious & Sleazy believed that Saddam had WMDs and weren't shy about saying so...

So who was fabricating what tensor?

Then we have all facts support his/her/its stupidity whining witlessly: "Turn your radio off Rush and onto reality. My biggest problem with the dems is the fact that they never went after the crimes of the Bush Gang, and still may not"...

This of course means that since all facts support his/her/its stupidity has NO facts on these alledged Bush administration crimes then whining will do...

Hey all facts support his/her/its stupidity, maybe the STUTTER MONKEY wants pardon the Clinton administration since to date it was the most scandalous and crime ridden one in history...

"I think that would qualify as 'checkmate'...:)'...

Well Shanghai Dan, I have to wonder if these libtards are smart enough to understand the word, 'checkmate'?...:-)

Posted by: juandos on April 27, 2009 05:53 AM
41. The Iowa Hawk shows us another shining Jerry Ford moment by Hussein the Inane...

Posted by: juandos on April 27, 2009 06:30 AM
42. Or this moment, pulling a bone-headed move and terrorizing New York City. Real smooth, 'bama, real smooth!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 12:38 PM
43. Waterboarding is NOT torture. Typical leftie moral-relativist BS.

I have many friends that were waterborded, in their military training.

Is it scary? Yes. Does it cause physical harm? No.

This entire episode is about scoring political points. Too bad all the publicity has rendered the technique useless.

Why not round up all those responsible for the thousands of service men and women who have been subjected to this "torture", over the last few decades?

Posted by: the Sasquatch on April 28, 2009 05:36 PM
44. Ignorant Sasquatch says:
Waterboarding is NOT torture. Typical leftie moral-relativist BS.

Except the US government and the Geneva convention have already defined waterboarding as torture.

Yes, we instruct our soldiers how to avoid torture by the bad guys. That doesn't mean we should torture people and act just like the bad guys.

Waterboarding is against the law, period. The only moral relativists are the people who try to excuse torture (the torture apologists on this thread).

We have something called the constitution (you should try reading it sometime) and George Washington said that we should never do what the British did to us. Ben Franklin said that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

I guess you don't really care about the constitution or the people who founded our country.

They waterboarded one guy 183 times in a month - over 6 times a day.

Bush and his fellow criminals lied about waterboarding - they said it was used judiciously. They claimed they got information from a single waterboard of this guy - but then why did they have to do it 183 times?


Just a bunch of lies. These people broke the law -they should be prosecuted for breaking the law. anyone who defends them is a torture apologist and not a true patriot.

Posted by: correctnotright on April 30, 2009 01:48 PM
45. I found lots of interesting information on blog.usefulwork.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. blog.usefulwork.com keep it that way.

Posted by: Bad credit Loans on April 30, 2009 06:22 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?