• on a comment on Why did we bother? over 5 years ago

    all the purism exists in our small sphere. The public at large is rather bloodthirsty.

    Let AQ hit us again and the GOP will be back in power so fast your head will spin. God help me, I'd have a hard time justifying it if we had no attacks for 7 years of Bush and get hit in O's first six months. There's a good reason Cheney is hoping we get hit. He's evil, not stupid.

  • on a comment on Why did we bother? over 5 years ago

    the morality argument is a bit of a canard. You can't honestly argue that it's moral to kill 100,000 Iraqis, or god knows how many Afhgans, yet immoral to torture 100. How many millions of innocent Americans do we have in brutal prison conditions that surpass even what the detainees endure?

    Yes, prosecuting torture is a good thing. Yes, it's the right thing. But it's not the only good or right thing, and it will not make us the "good guys". This is a drop of blood in a bucket, not some reclaimed moral virginity.

    Any realistic argument for prosecution must admit that it has a cost, that it poses - to whatever degree - a risk to other initiatives such as Health Care. How moral is it to risk the health and security of hundreds of thousands of families for a handful of show trials? How moral is it to risk hampering our intelligence capabilities in this highly charged global climate?

    Nothing exists in a vacuum. The singular focus on this issue, to the exclusion of all else, is extremely worrisome. At least to me.

  • comment on a post NY-20: It's Over, Jim Tedisco Concedes over 5 years ago

    it's telling that they are going after Steele specifically. Obviously they smell blood in the water.

  • is having a nervous breakdown. Every time I think I've read the scariest thing ever, I am rudely disabused of that notion a day later.

    I agree with someone upthread. Iran having nukes pales in comparison to this.

  • on a comment on Why did we bother? over 5 years ago

    prosecuting CIA members is in the national interest. I think there's a good case to be made for that view.

    The torture issue is important, but so are a lot of other initiatives. Personally, I'm more concerned about an effective response to a rogue Pakistan than I am about prosecuting. Luckily, I'm not the one that has to juggle priorities and make unpopular choices.

  • comment on a post Why did we bother? over 5 years ago

    the Right views him as "concessionary". They're variously ready to a) secede and b) send a million armed militiamen to Washington.

    The torture thing has it's own momentum now. Obama doesn't need to lead the charge, nor should he.

  • if they were the only ones. I can't imagine that any major player thinks the Taliban having access to nukes is acceptable.

  • When he says "I do not think it's appropriate" - very akin to "should not" - that seems to me like an opinion, considering he could have phrased it as "will not".

  • he's not making a determination, he's offering an opinion. It's quite possible DOJ will have a different one. This would be a determination:

    For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, they will not be prosecuted.

    I suspect the difference between the two statements is intentional.

  • Why do you believe deficit-neutral health care means no health care?

  • two weeks ago, he was "doing too much". Now he's too timid. Where are journalists getting these narratives, a Ouija board?

  • Obama's stance worries Israelis

    Washington sources added that the Obama Administration would not be continuing the tradition that had developed during the Bush years of hosting Israeli prime ministers whenever they showed up in town, sometimes with just a phone call's notice.

    It might have been no more than coincidence, but yesterday Israeli defence officials told the liberal daily Haaretz that Israel's $US15 billion ($A21 billion) purchase of 75 US-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets was now under review due to "the unexpected high cost and disagreements with the manufacturer".

    [...]

    Mr Obama is also demanding a freeze on Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, and has dropped the Bush administration's opposition to Hamas being part of a future Palestinian Authority government.

  • comment on a post Obama: stop sending munitions to kill Palestinians over 5 years ago

    h/t to M.J. Rosenberg of TPM:

    More Evidence That Obama is Changing Mideast policy

    The signs all point in one direction. President Obama is breaking with his predecessors' policies on Israel-Palestine.

    The latest evidence is his decision to submit legislation that would allow US assistance to the Palestinians even if Fatah and Hamas form a unity government. Under current law, any power sharing agreement would terminate US aid.

    This change, if implemented, makes it more likely that a power sharing arrangement will be reached. And that is good news because the two-state solution requires that there be one Palestinian entity, not two. The two-state solution is tricky enough. Three states? Forget about it.

  • on a comment on I blame Obama over 5 years ago

    I should know better than to take the comments seriously.

  • based on the angle of aim, she's about to take down a Predator drone loitering over her property.

    (wingnut porn)

Diaries

Advertise Blogads