Originally posted February 21, 2010
For This Week's Song and Commentary Click Here
Quackin Duck is a humorous political commentary blog specializing in satire on current political events and social issues. All political commentary & songs comment on news stories, current event issues and the hot topics of today. The political commentary and social opinions are the express personal opinions of each author and intended to look at the news stories and issues satirically without malice or rancor. If you would like to submit an article or political commentary to Quackin Duck please e-mail to lmd@quackinduck.com. Your contributions are welcomed.
For This Week's Song and Commentary Click Here
Quackin Duck is a humorous political commentary blog specializing in satire on current political events and social issues. All political commentary & songs comment on news stories, current event issues and the hot topics of today. The political commentary and social opinions are the express personal opinions of each author and intended to look at the news stories and issues satirically without malice or rancor. If you would like to submit an article or political commentary to Quackin Duck please e-mail to lmd@quackinduck.com. Your contributions are welcomed.
Commentary on
Biden and Cheney
Is America’s national security policy weaker or stronger today than it was a year ago? Former Vice President Dick Cheney is very outspoken on this issue, and he pulls no punches when commenting on the present Administration’s policies and procedures. Cheney’s comments are usually caustic and to the point, something that seems to rattle the populous and disturb the Obama Administration. So what does the Obama Administration do to quell the uneasiness Dick Cheney is causing? It puts Vice President Joe Biden on the counter attack. And Joe Biden’s main objective then is to paint Cheney as a hawkish, foolish, bitter old man who cannot distinguish truth and reality from fairytales and falsehoods. So when Dick Cheney was scheduled to take center stage last weekend on a Sunday talk show, the White House quickly booked Biden spots on two other talk shows. And the battle of the Vice Presidents was on.
On one TV show, Cheney accused the Obama Administration of being soft on terrorism while Biden countered on another station that Cheney doesn’t know what he is talking about. Biden said that negotiating with our allies and Iran is doing the job and that the imposition of sanctions will stop Iran from making nuclear weapons. Cheney, on the other hand, retorted that military force should remain on the table and that we can’t be certain this Administration will do what is necessary when it is necessary. And so it went. Question after question was asked of both of them until finally the major issue of today was broached—how terrorist threats are being handled. Biden argued that the underwear bomber, the 9/11 terrorists, and all other enemy combatants should be tried in federal court, rationalizing his position with the premise that Bush did that very thing himself. Cheney, on the other hand, simply and emphatically disagreed, once again supporting the use of military tribunals instead of our federal court system.
But strangely, Biden’s and Cheney’s answers to questions on national security, terror and terrorism, and the coming 9-11 and underwear bomber trials obviously avoid the single-most important reason that George Bush didn’t use military tribunals. The deliberately ignored fact is that military tribunals were not yet legal.
Biden and almost everyone else who defends prosecuting the underwear bomber in federal court use the shoe bomber as an example, forgetting that the shoe bomber was arrested back in 2002. Biden and almost everyone else who defends the decision to prosecute the 9-11 detainees in federal court heavily rest their case on the fact that President Bush held 300 terrorist trials in our courts instead of in military tribunals. But they neglect to mention that all these incidents took place before 2008, the year that military tribunals became legal.
The only person who even questioned this was Ann Coulter who, after researching the subject, found that the answer is purely and simply that by law a military tribunal could not take place. About a month after September 11, President Bush had issued an executive order for the creation of military commissions. But immediately after he signed the order, Congressional and secular opposition rose up against their formation. This continued for the next seven years. So ferocious was this opposition that twice the constitutionality of military tribunals was argued before the Supreme Court. And it wasn’t until the summer of 2008—six years after the shoe bomber was convicted—that the issue was resolved and the first military tribunal case was heard. Until then, President Bush had no recourse other than to use our Federal court system to bring these terrorists to justice. And that includes Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. So the truth is that the opposition’s argument—that Bush did it by choice so it is okay for Obama to do it by choice—is absolutely false.
But what does this Administration care about whole truth? They continually seem to be making it up as they go and then have the utter audacity to claim that Cheney is rewriting history. No one in this Administration seems to remember vital information or to have the ability to research any subject in question to find out real, honest answers. No one having anything to do with this Administration seems to remember just how heavily litigated the whole issue of military tribunals was, even though they were part of the opposition. No one having anything to do with this Administration remembers anything that would or could give even an inch on issues that would vindicate George Bush. No one having anything to do with this Administration will ever thank George Bush for anything or stop blaming him for everything. Because no one in this Administration seems to be capable of shouldering any amount of responsibility decorously or otherwise or accepting even a modicum of criticism about anything ever.
On one TV show, Cheney accused the Obama Administration of being soft on terrorism while Biden countered on another station that Cheney doesn’t know what he is talking about. Biden said that negotiating with our allies and Iran is doing the job and that the imposition of sanctions will stop Iran from making nuclear weapons. Cheney, on the other hand, retorted that military force should remain on the table and that we can’t be certain this Administration will do what is necessary when it is necessary. And so it went. Question after question was asked of both of them until finally the major issue of today was broached—how terrorist threats are being handled. Biden argued that the underwear bomber, the 9/11 terrorists, and all other enemy combatants should be tried in federal court, rationalizing his position with the premise that Bush did that very thing himself. Cheney, on the other hand, simply and emphatically disagreed, once again supporting the use of military tribunals instead of our federal court system.
But strangely, Biden’s and Cheney’s answers to questions on national security, terror and terrorism, and the coming 9-11 and underwear bomber trials obviously avoid the single-most important reason that George Bush didn’t use military tribunals. The deliberately ignored fact is that military tribunals were not yet legal.
Biden and almost everyone else who defends prosecuting the underwear bomber in federal court use the shoe bomber as an example, forgetting that the shoe bomber was arrested back in 2002. Biden and almost everyone else who defends the decision to prosecute the 9-11 detainees in federal court heavily rest their case on the fact that President Bush held 300 terrorist trials in our courts instead of in military tribunals. But they neglect to mention that all these incidents took place before 2008, the year that military tribunals became legal.
The only person who even questioned this was Ann Coulter who, after researching the subject, found that the answer is purely and simply that by law a military tribunal could not take place. About a month after September 11, President Bush had issued an executive order for the creation of military commissions. But immediately after he signed the order, Congressional and secular opposition rose up against their formation. This continued for the next seven years. So ferocious was this opposition that twice the constitutionality of military tribunals was argued before the Supreme Court. And it wasn’t until the summer of 2008—six years after the shoe bomber was convicted—that the issue was resolved and the first military tribunal case was heard. Until then, President Bush had no recourse other than to use our Federal court system to bring these terrorists to justice. And that includes Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. So the truth is that the opposition’s argument—that Bush did it by choice so it is okay for Obama to do it by choice—is absolutely false.
But what does this Administration care about whole truth? They continually seem to be making it up as they go and then have the utter audacity to claim that Cheney is rewriting history. No one in this Administration seems to remember vital information or to have the ability to research any subject in question to find out real, honest answers. No one having anything to do with this Administration seems to remember just how heavily litigated the whole issue of military tribunals was, even though they were part of the opposition. No one having anything to do with this Administration remembers anything that would or could give even an inch on issues that would vindicate George Bush. No one having anything to do with this Administration will ever thank George Bush for anything or stop blaming him for everything. Because no one in this Administration seems to be capable of shouldering any amount of responsibility decorously or otherwise or accepting even a modicum of criticism about anything ever.
___________________________________________
Biden and Cheney
Sung to the tune of Frankie and Johnny
Please press play February 21, 2010
Biden and Cheney are rivals,
both with their own point of view.
Cheney’s against the current approach
That lets terrorists continue.
Told those in command,
protect our land.
Now, Biden incensed by Cheney
demanded on TV he get.
There he accused his rival of
misrepresenting the threat
Our measures are strong
and your history is wrong.
Now, Criminal or Combatant,
which argument will derail?
Civil Trial or Military Court
which way will prevail?
Their fate must wait
till we resolve this stalemate.
Sung to the tune of Frankie and Johnny
Please press play February 21, 2010
Biden and Cheney are rivals,
both with their own point of view.
Cheney’s against the current approach
That lets terrorists continue.
Told those in command,
protect our land.
Now, Biden incensed by Cheney
demanded on TV he get.
There he accused his rival of
misrepresenting the threat
Our measures are strong
and your history is wrong.
Now, Criminal or Combatant,
which argument will derail?
Civil Trial or Military Court
which way will prevail?
Their fate must wait
till we resolve this stalemate.
__________________________________________
Link to Last Week's Song
__________________________________________
Link to Last Week's Song
__________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________________
Link to Archive Index Page
____________________________________
Link for More Songs Index
_________________________________________________
____________________________________
Link for More Songs Index
_________________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
Quackin Duck is a humorous political commentary blog specializing in satirical songs and pithy commentary on current political events and social issues. All political commentary & songs comment on news stories, current event issues and the hot topics of today. The political commentary and social opinions are the express personal opinion of the author and intended to look at the news stories and issues satirically without malice or rancor. If you would like to submit an article or political commentary to Quackin Duck please e-mail to lmd@quackinduck.com. Your contributions are welcomed.
