Hasselbeck: Put ‘Bush On Trial’ Not 9/11 Terrorists
I don’t think Elisabeth Hasselbeck actually meant that we should literally put the former president on trial (though, honestly, sometimes it’s hard to tell amidst all the shrieking) instead she was arguing we shouldn’t use the prosecution of the 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court as a sort of backdoor way to retroactively try Bush policies. But in an attempt to make her point that’s actually what she said.
Hasselback: The point is…this trial is being done to expose things about the Bush administration. Put Bush on trial then! Don’t put KSM on trial in America.
Behar: I like that idea!
Perhaps it should be noted that the question the View ladies were actually debating was where the 9/11 trial should be held if not in New York City, because for various understandable reasons (security, cost) no one wants it. Hasselbeck thinks it should be held as a military tribunal. Says Joy Behar to Elisabeth: Calm Down! And then there’s a lot of yelling about who is the better American citizen. Video below:
25 comments
philmon says: Well, I agree with Whoopie AND Elizabeth.
Military Tribunal at Guantanamo Bay. What a novel concept. Why didn’t somebody think of that sooner? :-P
The Real Royal King says: Dingbat! Female Kilmeade. Just not as good looking.
roxsteady says: During Bush’s administration, there were 20 Tribunals with 2 convictions. In that same period 196 terrorists were tried in Federal Court and convicted. End of story! By the way, it might interest Hasselbeck and her fellow New Yorkers who are sitting around that table to know that, there are currently 2 terror trials going on in New York….right now. Ed Shultz had Anthony Weiner on his show last night and he said that one of the terrorists is Bin Laden’s driver. I guess he’s not big enough for the media to even mention it. The point is that it’s been our judicial process all this time but, now they’re scaring everyone. Sadly, I think it has more to do with businesses not wanting streets right near the courthouse blocked off, cutting off their business traffic. As for Hasselbeck having a friend who died, well I was actually there for both WTC bombings and I still think they should be tried in Federal Court where ever they hold it. Federal Trials, like the 2 that are going on right now, do NOT allow cameras and defendents are not even seen entering the court in many cases. They also don’t allow the kind of grandstanding that the GOP claims we’ll see. The reports will be dull police sketch artist still shots. It’s just stunning to me that no one in the media is explaining any of this to people. There just reporting what each side is saying, as if they’re just bystanders. Just the facts please! Oh, and Hasselbeck is shrill.
roxsteady says: That’s “they’re just reporting.
sarainitaly says: “Hasselbeck: Put ‘Bush On Trial’ Not 9/11 Terrorists
But in an attempt to make her point that’s actually what she said.”
That doesn’t sound like what she actually said…?
“Hasselback: The point is…this trial is being done to expose things about the Bush administration. Put Bush on trial then! Don’t put KSM on trial in America.”
Sounds like she said don’t put him on trial in the US. If people want to put KSM on trial in America, only as a means to put Bush on trial, then they should go after Bush seperately, but not try KSM in America. That doesn’t actually sound like the headline.
blueblogger says: Hasselbeck is a perfect example of a GOP blond. You all have seen all the blond jokes that float around. She is a perfect candidate for any or all of them. Wifty is the word that comes to my mind. No, I do not watch The View but it is not because of her.
Rox you are right on the money in this post but I am afraid you are fighting a losing battle here on Mediate. Not many that post here have an open mind. Most are Fox people and it seems they never look elsewhere for any other information unless it is a right leaning blog.
ImNotBlue says: roxsteady says:
February 2, 2010 at 5:51 pm
During Bush’s administration, there were 20 Tribunals with 2 convictions. In that same period 196 terrorists were tried in Federal Court and convicted. End of story!
Does anyone know what Roxy is trying to say here?
Ed Shultz had Anthony Weiner on his show last night and he said that one of the terrorists is Bin Laden’s driver. I guess he’s not big enough for the media to even mention it.
Pretty much… yeah. Driver vs 9/11’s architect. Hmmm… nope, not close.
As for the reasons you said why a federal trial “wouldn’t be that bad,” you don’t give a reason why it’s a GOOD thing. Just because it’s not a “bad thing” (according to you), isn’t enough of a reason for why it should take place, over military tribunals. Facts are, it will cost more money, take more time, and set a bad precedent… so why (especially since the Obama Admin. has decided that SOME will get tribunals, and some will get trials) would a federal trial be a good thing?
blueblogger says:
February 2, 2010 at 6:01 pm
I doubt you will (out of spite), but my “un-open mind” wonders “why?” Please help me out, and since you agree with Roxy, respond to the over-arching question… “Why is this a good thing?”
Elizabeth Hasselbeck has been hanging around those other catty battle-axes too long. I guess you are the company you keep. I saw an old video earlier that I had missed where Hasselbeck claims Rush Limbaugh is racist and such. As usual, the view people took a few words totally out of context and ran with it. I did not do the same to Hasselbeck. She was clear, in context as to what her opinion was about Rush. So be careful when giving her the benefit of the doubt. I think Donald Trump was right about her.
blueblogger says: ImNotBlue I didn’t say you were one of the ones on here that does not have an open mind. I didn’t mention any names. 2nd I am NOT a spiteful person. In fact that is why I seldom post on here because I really don’t have much to share when people are always after each others throats. I said I agreed with Roxy on that particular post.
@ blueblogger says:
February 2, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Hasselbeck is a perfect example of a GOP blond.
Kinda funny. The inference is of course GOP ‘blond’s are stupid. Here comes my(all too easy) cheap shot;
Hasselbeck, at least, most likely knows how to spell the word; “blonde”.
TinaFromTampa says: @ Trickletown says:
February 2, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Hasselbeck, at least, most likely knows how to spell the word; “blonde”.
Probably not without looking at the L’Oreal box.
Jelperman says: How do these dumb yentas even know Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did it? They say it as though it were a proven fact. Guess what geniuses, people will swear to anything if you force water down their lungs. During the many periods of witch hysteria, old ladies who were water tortured “confessed” to flying on broomsticks and turning people into toads, for heaven’s sake!
cisconchip says: eric holders x(?) law firm is defending ksm–aclu has another case—more and more of this liberal-progressive marxist bs and screwups—-wakeup–and now the panti bomber is suddenly and convieniently talking again–again covering up their lack of judgement and incompetence and corruption–the democrats are a creepshow
fly4vino says: The press is missing the big picture.
The purpose of the trials is not to provide justice to the prisoners but rather to suck the oxygen out of the public outrage over the Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration. By staging the trials in NY and by controlling the pace of the trials Holder can control the front page of the papers and the tv and radio headlines for months and months. It was a brilliant strategy even if New Yorkers hated it. It’s the one plot that could save a lot of Democrats. To those who feel the guilty will be found guilty , think back to the spectacle of the OJ trial.
Our troops are subject to huge risks in their efforts to take live captives. It’s a lot easier to stand back and call in an air strike and then count the pieces. If these prisoners are going to be given Miranda warnings and attorneys there is no more reason to take prisoners.
Holder’s FBI has shown its colors in the mishandling of the December bomber. It was their intent that the plane crash in the US so that we would know who caused the loss of life and the potential collapse of the airlines.
cisconchip says: but the point—- that hasselback as a perfect example of a gop blond–as the liberal intelligencia demeaningly itterates– as it points its crooked finger.– these are the same people that voted for the illusion the democrates perpetrated-hope. pleeeeease
Jack Kennedy says: look at all the LIBERAL VITRIOL and HATE toward the real Americans
ImNotBlue says: blueblogger says:
February 2, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Okay… terrific.
But why do you agree with Roxy? Why are civilian trials for pre-convicted terrorists (remember, the Obama Admin already said they’d be found guilty) a good thing?
Jelperman says:
February 2, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Yeah… didn’t he admit it PRIOR to waterboarding? Didn’t they know who he was, and what he did PRIOR to capture? Didn’t the Obama Admin talk about his role, and say he’d be found guilty?
This is the real problem with the far left… they hated Bush so much, anything he did or said was more than just wrong, it was evil. That means, that if he said it was so, they’d disagree… so when something like KSM comes up, despite evidence, and general consensus across the board, they’re hate for Bush re-manifests. They’re willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone like KSM, simply because of their hatred of all things Bush, and right of Obama.
But, really… does it matter? How does this change anything? Pre-determined guilt or not, do you think they wouldn’t be able to determine that in a tribunal?
I’ll quote my very intelligent friend as to why they should be tried as criminals…
http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/362317367/terrorism-is-a-law-enforcement-issue-you-dont-really
“we consider terrorists criminals. We treat them like criminals. If they were soldiers in an opposing army—as they would be in a war—we wouldn’t blame them for what they did. We would certainly detain them—but once the war was over, we would let them go. If the War on Terror is an actual war, the terrorists are simply enemy soldiers who we should treat in the same manner was we would want our captured soldiers treated. No interrogation. No charges. No trials of any kind. And release at the end of the war. Trying to blow up an airplane isn’t a legitimate act of war. It’s not even a war crime. It’s just a crime.
Of course, the people who insist it’s a war will insist that it is a “different kind of war.” You know what you call something that is different than war? NOT WAR. That doesn’t mean you need to take it lightly. But it does mean that if you insist on calling it war and getting angry at anybody who doesn’t call it war, you’re posturing.
Or, alternatively, you’re looking for an excuse to disregard the protections we traditionally give both to criminals and to military opponents. You might want to say that the rules that made this country great shouldn’t apply. Or that they should only apply when we feel like they should apply (which is the same thing as not applying.) As much as I disagree with this position, it’s not entirely indefensible. But if that’s your position, you should at least be honest about it.”
Jelperman says: “Yeah… didn’t he admit it PRIOR to waterboarding? Didn’t they know who he was, and what he did PRIOR to capture? ”
I don’t know, did he? I doubt it. They’ve told so many lies about this case that nothing they say can be taken at face value. I don’t see how any evidence obtained from him isn’t tainted by torture. You could get him to admit to the Lincoln assassination if you tortured a person long enough.
Jelperman says: “But, really… does it matter? How does this change anything? Pre-determined guilt or not, do you think they wouldn’t be able to determine that in a tribunal?”
Not in front of the secret kangaroo courts Bush set up for Guantanamo they can’t. Any court that allows evidence obtained under torture is conducting a lynching. If they want to do that sort of thing they should wear white robes and burn a cross to start the proceedings.
The Real Royal King says: “Dumb yentas.” I love it!
ReConUSMC says: That entire Panels common sense IQ could not turn on a light Bulb .
Or its Viewers and Audience as well .
Sadly those same Viewers and Audience get to Vote ….. Obama and Pelosi supporters all guaranteed .
pyrope says: Never has the statement “It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful” been more true.
Wait…forget Hasselbeck. Let’s go broader here. Are we actually pretending that “The View” is important?
elizadavid says: It doesn’t give her any more say than other people. I lost a family member on 9/11, and I want to see KSM tried in a US criminal court. These people want to be seen as soldiers, and their cause as a war. So why should we give them what they want? I think we need to treat KSM and the others like any other serial killer. No special handling, status or priviledge. But my view has no more importance than the view of Elisabeth or anyone else.
- » This Exists: Doggie Butt Covers
- » Jon Stewart's Epic Parody Of Glenn Beck
- » Another CNN Anchor Fails At Celebrity Jeopardy
- » Joe Biden At The Radio & Television Dinner: As Entertaining As You'd Hope
- » FAMU Sex Tape Link - Real Or Hoax?
Job hunting?
Use our proprietary jobs tool to access the largest pool of jobs aggregated from around the country.
CNN’s John King, USA Premieres On Web With Rehearsal Show
There are two very distinct things to note about the way CNN has introduced the upcoming 7pmET show John King, USA to its audience - the show itself and the way it happened. John King hosted a trial run of the program today on CNN.com/live, which gave a sneak peek at what the show will be, but also gave viewers a chance to give their take on the first look.
Is Meet the Press Trying to Diversify its Panels?: An Update
A few weeks ago, Mediaite reported that Meet the Press has pledged to diversify its panels of guests and commentators. So how are they doing? Well, the show has gone four weeks in a row where African American men were featured on the show. This week's show will actually go one better: an African American guest and an African American journalist on the roundtable.
More TV headlines:
»FBN And Bloomberg Both Win Lawsuits To Get You Information
»The Media’s Weird Love Affair With Glenn Beck »1
»Odd: Megyn Kelly Interviews Gene Simmons On…Health Care? »2
»White House Responds to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore »3
»Morning Joe Defies Cable News Cliche With Strong Charter School Debate »4
-
Coming soon...
© 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives
| Dan Abrams, Founder
| Hosting by Datagram
| 
RSS
