Moammar Gadhafi has called on Libyans to “destroy” the rebels who have overtaken Tripoli forced his regime into hiding. The appeal comes as intense fighting has erupted in the Libyan capital. (Aug. 25)
Continue reading …Moammar Gadhafi has called on Libyans to “destroy” the rebels who have overtaken Tripoli forced his regime into hiding. The appeal comes as intense fighting has erupted in the Libyan capital. (Aug. 25)
Continue reading …Click here to view this media When, exactly, do statements like these shift from protected speech to sedition? Gheen: Once again this isn’t just Obama, this is a group of people, we’ve been reading about them for five or ten years now about how they plan to integrate the economies of North America and to do so in a way to do so that bypasses the legislatures, that’s been in all the materials that we’ve read and here it is in front of us. They’re integrating the workforce of North America and the populations of North America and they did just bypass the legislatures. The same cabal has such influence with the media and the Associated Press, I’ll give you example and I haven’t totally mentioned this on the air before, right after Obama did this I got a call from an Associated Press writer out of Washington, D.C., she’s like ‘what’s your initial reaction’ and I said, ‘this is, Obama has just exceeded his constitutional authority and acted in a dictatorial manner which we believe removes all legitimacy for his presidency and that we’re gonna be calling on the Republican to remove this man from office as soon as possible.’ And I didn’t say just impeachment. I said remove him from office because some people are also leaning to the words ‘treason’ and talking about the military coming in or somebody just coming in taking this guy into some form of arrest if we’re doing this . I mean what do you do here? What does a nation do when this happens? We may have to try to have to gather in the streets and demand that Obama step down. But you know when you talk about doing that, you’re gonna gather in the streets of Washington D.C. which where Obama has a support rate of 88% of the blacks and Hispanics who live there. Wingnut William Gheen is from the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC). ALIPAC claims to be a PAC formed to “address the disparity between the public’s desire for more control of illegal immigration and the actions of lawmakers.” It’s really a thinly-disguised hate group. In 2010 Dave Neiwert wrote about their dirty, lying efforts to lobby against the DREAM Act. It seems Shawna Forde may also have had ALIPAC links , at least, if wingnut Jim Gilchrist is to be believed. But President Obama’s directive to limit deportations to immigrants with criminal records seems to have driven Gheen right off the edge and into a place he shouldn’t be. Via Right Wing Watch : Americans for Legal Immigration PAC’s William Gheen is out in force after we at People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch reported on an interview with Janet Mefferd in which he said that “extra-political activities” that he described as “illegal and violent” might be the only way for people to stop the “Dictator Barack Obama.” Gheen told Mefferd that the Obama administration is “putting out videos and propaganda telegraphing what I believe to be a conflict with White America they’re preparing for after they get another 10 or 15 million people in the country to back them up.” He went on to say that his group is now referring to the president as “Dictator Barack Obama” and said, “If you’re looking for a peaceful, political recourse there really isn’t one that we can think of, and I’m really not sure what to tell people out there than I guess they need to make decisions soon to just accept whatever comes next or some type of extra-political activities that I can’t really talk about because they’re all illegal and violent.” Gheen has since released a “ clarification ” of his comments. “I have made it very clear that I disavow any form of violence on many occasions,” Gheen said, “I cannot delve into the options Barack Obama is forcing on Americans that are concerned about the illegal alien invasion of America.” He blames Obama for forcing people “into a decision between submission or more revolutionary means” and added that he is considering “ending efforts to influence elections or Congress because I feel that such measures will not be enough to change the course of America.” Alan Colmes interviewed Gheen on his radio show yesterday and gave Gheen an opportunity to clarify his statements about violence, dictatorship and executive privilege. Gheen chose to tiptoe around and walk away from his statements on the record. Listen to what he said. Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com Again, when does speech become sedition? I would say calling for a military coup to trample on the Constitution and remove a democratically elected President from office might qualify, don’t you think?
Continue reading …So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?
Continue reading …So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?
Continue reading …So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?
Continue reading …So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?
Continue reading …
According to Hardball guest host Ron Reagan Jr., former Vice President Dick Cheney is a “war criminal” for endorsing waterboarding. On Thursday, the son of the former President attacked, “But the fact of the matter is…[Cheney's] a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague .” Reagan was commenting on a new interview Cheney has given to NBC in which he reiterates support for waterboarding. The liberal anchor discussed the subject with Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Reagan reiterated, “…Any neutral reading of, say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.” [See video below. MP3 audio here .] Page seemed to agree: “I think in real life [Cheney] probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will.” Page added that the ex-VP “probably” hasn't got much to fear, in terms of criminal prosecution. Reagan also called Cheney a war criminal on CNN in January of 2011. Reagan has guest-hosted for the very liberal Chris Matthews three times this week. On Wednesday, he derided presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a “lonely, homophobic voice shrieking in the wilderness.” [Thanks to MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons for the video.] A transcript of the August 25 exchange can be found below: 5:21 JAMIE GANGEL: Should we still be waterboarding terror suspects? DICK CHENEY: I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk. GANGEL: Even though so many people condemned it. People call it torture. You think it should still be a tool? CHENEY: Yes. RON REAGAN JR. You see, Clarence, he never backs off of that sort of thing. I guess, we don't expect him to. But the fact of the matter is, and people know my feelings about this pretty surely, he's a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague. Does he deal with that, do you suppose, in the book? PAGE: Well, I can't say how he deals with it in the book in detail, just from reports that have come out. I think in real life he probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will. But, as far as back here in the states, he probably hasn't got much to fear. The Obama administration made it clear they want to move on. They don't want to go back to the Justice Department and go after the Bush administration on legal areas like this. But with a campaign coming along, again, you've got a polarized the electorate. Nothing he set apparently would offend Republicans. It will offend a lot of Democrats. Will it fire them up to wanted to come out and support Obama more? That's the kind of question we're asking now. REAGAN JR: Y eah. Not to hammer the point at all, but any neutral reading of say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.
Continue reading …
According to Hardball guest host Ron Reagan Jr., former Vice President Dick Cheney is a “war criminal” for endorsing waterboarding. On Thursday, the son of the former President attacked, “But the fact of the matter is…[Cheney's] a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague .” Reagan was commenting on a new interview Cheney has given to NBC in which he reiterates support for waterboarding. The liberal anchor discussed the subject with Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Reagan reiterated, “…Any neutral reading of, say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.” [See video below. MP3 audio here .] Page seemed to agree: “I think in real life [Cheney] probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will.” Page added that the ex-VP “probably” hasn't got much to fear, in terms of criminal prosecution. Reagan also called Cheney a war criminal on CNN in January of 2011. Reagan has guest-hosted for the very liberal Chris Matthews three times this week. On Wednesday, he derided presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a “lonely, homophobic voice shrieking in the wilderness.” [Thanks to MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons for the video.] A transcript of the August 25 exchange can be found below: 5:21 JAMIE GANGEL: Should we still be waterboarding terror suspects? DICK CHENEY: I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk. GANGEL: Even though so many people condemned it. People call it torture. You think it should still be a tool? CHENEY: Yes. RON REAGAN JR. You see, Clarence, he never backs off of that sort of thing. I guess, we don't expect him to. But the fact of the matter is, and people know my feelings about this pretty surely, he's a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague. Does he deal with that, do you suppose, in the book? PAGE: Well, I can't say how he deals with it in the book in detail, just from reports that have come out. I think in real life he probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will. But, as far as back here in the states, he probably hasn't got much to fear. The Obama administration made it clear they want to move on. They don't want to go back to the Justice Department and go after the Bush administration on legal areas like this. But with a campaign coming along, again, you've got a polarized the electorate. Nothing he set apparently would offend Republicans. It will offend a lot of Democrats. Will it fire them up to wanted to come out and support Obama more? That's the kind of question we're asking now. REAGAN JR: Y eah. Not to hammer the point at all, but any neutral reading of say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.
Continue reading …According to Hardball guest host Ron Reagan Jr., former Vice President Dick Cheney is a “war criminal” for endorsing waterboarding. On Thursday, the son of the former President attacked, “But the fact of the matter is…[Cheney's] a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague .” Reagan was commenting on a new interview Cheney has given to NBC in which he reiterates support for waterboarding. The liberal anchor discussed the subject with Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Reagan reiterated, “…Any neutral reading of, say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.” [See video below. MP3 audio here .] Page seemed to agree: “I think in real life [Cheney] probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will.” Page added that the ex-VP “probably” hasn't got much to fear, in terms of criminal prosecution. Reagan also called Cheney a war criminal on CNN in January of 2011. Reagan has guest-hosted for the very liberal Chris Matthews three times this week. On Wednesday, he derided presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a “lonely, homophobic voice shrieking in the wilderness.” [Thanks to MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons for the video.] A transcript of the August 25 exchange can be found below: 5:21 JAMIE GANGEL: Should we still be waterboarding terror suspects? DICK CHENEY: I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk. GANGEL: Even though so many people condemned it. People call it torture. You think it should still be a tool? CHENEY: Yes. RON REAGAN JR. You see, Clarence, he never backs off of that sort of thing. I guess, we don't expect him to. But the fact of the matter is, and people know my feelings about this pretty surely, he's a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague. Does he deal with that, do you suppose, in the book? PAGE: Well, I can't say how he deals with it in the book in detail, just from reports that have come out. I think in real life he probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will. But, as far as back here in the states, he probably hasn't got much to fear. The Obama administration made it clear they want to move on. They don't want to go back to the Justice Department and go after the Bush administration on legal areas like this. But with a campaign coming along, again, you've got a polarized the electorate. Nothing he set apparently would offend Republicans. It will offend a lot of Democrats. Will it fire them up to wanted to come out and support Obama more? That's the kind of question we're asking now. REAGAN JR: Y eah. Not to hammer the point at all, but any neutral reading of say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.
Continue reading …