Obama completes what Bush started: Torture crimes officially, permanently shielded They hate us for our freedoms... EDIT: Reading back through this thread is upsetting. Some smart posters I respect really surprised me in their reactions - particularly Sishir. *shakes head*
One sure way for Obama to lose the next election would be to put on trial US interrogators who helped in the finding and killing of Osama.
And I will stand by what I said earlier. I find this very disappointing and certainly one of the more questionable moments of the Obama Admin. That said if the current Admin. were to engage in prosecutions of the previous Admin. that would likely paralyze the government and have prevented him from enacting an agenda. As I said earlier you have to ask yourself would you rather have the Obama Admin. going after previous Administration officials or working on an agenda of their own? If you look at the history of the US Presidency generally every incoming Admin. has held off pursuing the previous ones. Ford pardoned Nixon and even Carter agreed with that. Also another factor to consider is that while the current Admin. isn't prosecuting the previous ones regarding torture. They have stopped it and rejected the reasoning put forward by Yoo. While I agree this isn't the ideal of prosecution this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately they are still engaging in warrantless wiretaps.
I don't think it has to be an either/or situation. The DOJ could handle the prosecutions while the rest of the administration focuses on their own agenda.
Technically yes but politically no and especially not now that one of the houses is in Republican control. If you look at the situation with the Clinton Impeachment very little got done by Congress or the Executive while it was going on what ever did, bombing of Iraq, was heavily colored by the specter of impeachment.
I think "pity" is a bit much, Rhad. Disappointment? The longtime member who's current moniker I cannot spell (for the life of me), may have disappointed some of us by not taking a stronger stand on this issue, but that's his right, of course, and he's far more reasonable about this (and a lot more) than some members are here, excluding the running jokes that pollute D&D with countless threads filled with bull****. I think this topic deserves to be brought up again when there is news to report. More disappointment, of course. Yes, Obama has disappointed some of us on several issues, including this one, obviously, but after voting for someone else (if someone else is deserving of my vote) in the primary, my support, money, and vote will help the President with his reelection campaign. The other options don't bear thinking about. Sitting home in a snit is ludicrous. The man in the Oval Office, flaws and all, is a damn sight better than the alternative.
I will vote for him, I think,though I just heard an argument against it that is close to convincing me not to. I wish a liberal or someone who is unafraid of the elitists at the top would run so we could have at least some public education. Cautious Obama is close to a zero in terms of letting folks know which party or what policies could be taken to help the average person. Obama appears to be such an elitist with his Bush retread defense and Wall Street crew so content with his new found fame. I am very tired of seeing the GOP moving steadily toward the right and seeing Dems like Obama content to cautiously move rightward with them-- just being slightly more moderate i.e, having slightly fewer troops killed needlessly in Afghanistan, polluting slightly less, reducing social security slightly less, etc. I keep telling myself what else can I do more worthwhile in the half hr it takes to vote. Look at how not electing Gore led to several trillion blown in Iraq, hundreds of thousand of innocents murdered, a couple of trillion in tax breaks for the upper couple percent and a needless budget crisis. However, eventually, if not now, the Dems like Obama will have to be punished if they are ever going to be mor populist. They are about power, not morality or compassion. Meanwhile more and more confused and suffering working class folks, like frogs not jumping our of gradually heating water, don't know what ahs seem to hit them and wig out. After losing 1% purchasing power per yr since old smiley Reagan and their wealth is transferred to the top 1 to 2% they start to freak and lash out at immigrants, intellectuals,teachers or government workers who still have pension like their parents once had-- and thanks in part to Obama types go to Tea Party events designed by conservative billionaires to falsely channel their pain away from blaming the elite.
I think Obama is more than "slightly" moderate compared to the opposition, but I certainly get your point, and it's a good one. The loonies running the GOP in Congress refuse to compromise on anything worth mentioning, so what happens? Obama compromises instead, drifting Right, giving in, not taking a strong stand on issues that appeared dear to him during the campaign that got him elected, issues dear to a lot of Democrats and independents. It would be nice to see him take a strong public stand against the GOP leadership in Congress. NOW. All during this budget mess, he's been offering compromises, doing his drifting towards the Right, and all he gets in return are more demands. He should have been raising hell a long time ago. The topic here, of course, is another example.
Yeah, the problem with Obama is that he keeps expecting the GOP to act rationally. They won't. Once he saw they were willing to deadlock all legislation to make sure that millionaires got their tax breaks, he should have realized that they wouldn't act rationally. They are serving only small segment of our society, and will probably be willing to not raise the debt ceiling to make sure they get their wish. It isn't rational or good for the nation, but they don't care. That's especially true when people like Eric Cantor stand to make money personally by causing the treasury bonds to tank. It sounded like from Obama's press conference that he was going to call them out. But they all think he'll cave in, since he's done it before. They also think that if he doesn't cave in, it will look like it was his fault, so it won't be bad for them. He, and the other Democrats need to illustrate all of this loudly and repeatedly, over and over, so that the public can see what's going on. The GOP is always good at a unified message repeated over and over whether it's true or not. It's time for the Democrats to use that same formula.
You make good points, but when you can willingly trade the president's confirmed roles and responsibilities; when you can justify ignoring the constitution - for the sake of a so-called agenda - you've effectively neutered your ability to criticize on principles for the sake of partisan slant. Sishir's argument essentially makes any criticism of any president impossible. Well, we can be disappointed, but we need to understand they have to make sacrifices for their agendas, and that it would be poor form to hold them accountable inasmuch as those sacrifices break the law and make a mockery of our loudly proclaimed moral righteousness. This is really the heart of much of what is wrong with America's policy and politics. Acceptance of the status quo and blanket forgiveness of past transgressions as "water under the bridge". How can we expect any president to reign in our surveillance state, our civil rights blunders, our neverending war machine, if no one is held accountable? How can Sishir criticize wiretaps but defend allowing torturers to go free? How can anyone give Bush a hard time and then endorse Obama's defense of him and his policies/regimes? I do pity that. It requires desertion of principles for the sake of "political unity" or nationalist dogma. I don't think people come to that conclusion without sacrificing decency and ethics under the guise of "rationalization". That attitude should be pitied, because it's dangerous and maddening but also understandable...something that could be more... I'm a cynic through and through, but Sishir's argument takes cynicism a bit further...towards nihilism.
In this regard, they are probably right - he's going to get the blame if anything bad happens. That's the nature of the Presidency, no matter what the messaging is - you get credit and blame for the economy no matter the details. It's easy to say he should do something different, but what should he do? If the other side truly is willing to let the economy crater to benefit them, then how does Obama taking a hard-line stance help anything? Then not only does Obama lose, but the people lose when the debt ceiling expires and the economy goes into recession #2. Negotiating with people who don't care about anything but themselves is difficult. It's like calling a bluff in poker - you better have a hand to play if the other side is never going to fold. And Obama doesn't really have any hand to play unless he also is willing to let the economy crater and take his chances.
this topic isn't compromising. there is no way this is happening. you start prosecuting guys who were following orders, you have to move up the food chain. you move up the food chain, you create a worse political climate than we have. its a non issue unfortunately but the other aspect of this unfortunately is probably half this country has no problem with what went on. there are all kinds of varibles. its easy for us to sit on a web site and yell and shout about what would happen in utopia but politicians have to deal with political realiaties. yes, the republicans are being ridiculously obstructive anyway, no need to make it worse. especially on an issue i guarantee that would round up more than the tea party base.
"Pity" really? Holier than thou are we now. I think you are conflating a fairly narrow political debate with moral righteousness. I've never said you can't criticize any president. I criticize presidents frequently and will continue to do so. What I have been saying in the context of this debate that I understand why Obama is doing this. It doesn't mean I support it but given the history of the Presidency what he has done is understandable and to that regard while I find it disappointing I am not going to blast the Obama Admin. for doing so. Once again you have to ask yourself what do you want the Presidency to be about? Do you want them to be a prosecutor of the prior Admin. or do you want them to actually get something done? I personally prefer that the Admin. deal with the here and now rather than pursue the previous the Admin.. Hyperbole much? You are seeing this in terms of absolutes as if Obama doesn't pursue the Bush Admin. he has abandoned moral principles and if Rocketsjudoka doesn't thunder against the Obama admin. Rocketsjudoka has no moral principles and is heading towards nihlism. Really? To throw in a Star Wars quote "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Clearly the Obama and his Admin. do care about moral principles otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with ending this policy and refuting the reasoning put forward by Yoo et al. Why yes they are not doing everything they can repudiate it by prosecuting Yoo et al. they are addressing that. Again given history I am not aware of any US Presidency having launched a large scale prosecution of previous Admin.. As I mentioned earlier Ford pardoned Nixon and even the Liberal hero Carter approved. None of that means that America tortured with the approval of the DOJ and high ups in the Admin. should be forgotten. This issue should continuously be brought up and judged by history. The Obama Admin. should be judged by history for their decision to not prosecute also. Also just to add I always keep an open mind and as we learn more about what the previous Admin. did I reserve judgement to change my mind. Finally this is a personal note that I also mentioned in another thread. What is the deal with using my real name? While I am not offended I find it annoying as it generally only is brought up when someone is calling me out on something and also strikes me as being paternalistic and condescending.
Apparently that word really upset people. I regret using it - the tonality people are assuming is not at all accurate. I meant it as "I can sympathize with your point of view, albeit I don't agree" - not, "oh woe to you poor fool". This is understandable and actually, I kind of agree. But then I think a bit more and, no I don't. It will take someone taking a stand and actually *gasp* acting on the constitutional principles we give great lip service to in order to break this pattern of executive abuse. Do I blame Obama for choosing this path? Inasmuch as he gave campaign promises in this vein, yeah...I'm bitter as ****. Am I surprised? No. You don't support it...but you understand. That's shockingly accepting of what you (presumably) lament...it's the Major-esque "well, other presidents have done this before excuse." I don't buy it. I want him to be about the constitution. About habeus corpus, freedom, liberty, and all those things Bush often mentioned in his speeches and then shat upon in policy. I want the admin to punish those who work against it, and rectify the abuses. I think I'm being harder on Obama, but it's really his own damn fault. He sold himself as something different, but he's not. Some things deserve a principled stand. A right to trial and no torture should be pretty high on that list. Yes. Don't Darth Donny me! I don't buy the "other presidents" and "historically we've done this" argument when it comes to our politicians reneging on the articles they swear to uphold. Fair enough man. I really do empathize. The rationalist is torn in this situation. I draw my lines clearly and concretely. It does not mean that it's nice or even fair. Nothing of the sort intended. Just a relic from the olden days. And "judoka" is a b**** to type. :grin: Apologies.
Rhad, excellent post. Are you going to spend the 30 minutes required to vote for Obama? I think I still am, though it is obviious that for those who stand for the values you mention above Obama is a place holder. Allegedly Obama doesn't support what he often does -- "doesn't support but understands"(due to his sophisticated political tactician thing, though I'm not buying that too much these days.) Tom Hartman thinks that Obama for instance is once again going to cave on repealing the Bush tax breaks for millionaires because he is just plain scared that only a couple of cranky billionaires can now buy the prseidential election due to the oligarchic five on the S. Ct. and Citizen's United has overturned a previous statute passed by theCongress and signed into law by the president and previous S. Ct decisions interpretted that law to allow direct unlimited coprorate investing in elections. Obamsais afraid to get any of the selfish billionaires pissed off more than they are already. My own stance on Obama is spend the 30 minutes to vote for him; give him no money or time. He makes things worse more slowly. Let the moderate Dems, moderate Repubs like Major (who Obama appeals to most) talk him up. We are going down the toilet to iron clad corporate control if we continue down the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Obama path. Hopefully a citizens movement can eventually push a moderate Obama type "who oppose yet understands" to oppose or at least stop opposition to corporate domination.
