Why did we bother?

I ended up behind Barack Obama by default.  I was an Edwards guy and then a Hillary supporter before I got on the train and backed the ticket.  In November I thought that perhaps this was all for the best. Edwards was gambling with disaster by hiding his affair / love child and Hillary proved she couldn't pick decent strategists.  So maybe this was the only way to win.

Yet...  My fear about Obama was always that he would push for consensus to the detriment of real progress-- that he would try to be "reasonable" (read concessionary) with the right wing.  That fear subsided somewhat during the debates and during his victory and inaugural speeches.  Now those fears are being tragically realized.  

The problem with electing milquetoast democrats is they don't accomplish what they could if were willing to fight, and afterward the public thinks the left is discredited, even if the policies of the left never get enacted.

Obama is blowing it morally in 2 big ways.  He is refusing to prosecute torturers and those who authorized them in the name of conciliation.  This is the equivalent of not having the Nuremburg trials at the end of World War II.  Instead we send a message to the Nazis, that we're "Ready to move on".

Ready to move on means ignore and condone.  There is NO other explanation.  It means that either Obama wants the ability to do this or he doesn't care if the UNITED STATES of AMERICA tortures again in the future.  In fact, his cowardice will ensure it.

For those who care about human rights and the moral behaviour of our country, rectifying the fact that we tortured people  has to be issue number one.  Else we are compliant pissant nazis who were either "just following orders" or "had no way of knowing".

Obama's failure to stand up to Wall Street is the exact same behaviour-- cowardice in the face of srtong (read moneyed) interests.  Only in this case he kowtows to the thieving rich rather than the sadistic.

Mister Obama, if you want our respect, ensure that our country will never torture again.  Else get out of the way.  We don't care if you get re-elected if this is what you are all about.

Tags: Obama cowardice torture elite wall street (all tags)

Comments

88 Comments

Why do I bother

reading this crappy blog?

Listen, note for future, avoid words like "us" and "we" because you don't speak for everyone...thanks.

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do I bother

A venture fouls even Fox News. A scanner chalks Americans don't fucking torture next to the minimalist. How can Americans don't fucking torture fly without even Fox News? Even Fox News enhances the anecdote. Why does Americans don't fucking torture dash behind even Fox News?

by QTG 2009-04-24 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did we bother?

I'll put you down as one in the "pro torture" camp.  Sorry to speak for you.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 02:46PM | 0 recs
Put me down as whatever the fuck you want

I don't care.

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 02:47PM | 0 recs
Free Republic is recruiting

Go get an account.

Sounds like you kind of place.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Free Republic is recruiting

Free Republic is pro torture.  I'm not.  It's sad to see that apparently a lot on the left are indifferent about torture if bringing it up puts Obama in a less than ideal light.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 03:34PM | 0 recs
Again, 5th grade debating techniques

are not real effective here.

NO ONE HERE is indifferent about torture, perhaps if you actually spent some time here (looks like not a lot of time since Edwards bowed out..Your last diary was in April of last year?) you would know that.

And, this is has NOTHING to do with putting Obama in a less then ideal light.

Knock off the Puma type stuff, most of us have been ALL OVER him about Wall Street and Summers, etc..

But, you missed THAT as well, just assuming...

SO, STFU with this if we aren't on the "War Tribunals all the time" kick we are not concerned about torture.

Most of us support the Justice department, which btw has the best shot of not being politically compromised as the Congress is, looking at it in a logical and investigative manner...

What I see from the David Sirrota army is, if Obama doesn't drag Dick Cheney out in leg irons tomorrow, he is a Nazi appeaser, which is why I say, seems we have our T-baggers as well!

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Again, 5th grade debating techniques

I don't mind being lumped in with David Sirota (or Josh Marshall, for that matter).

This has EVERYthing with putting Obama in a less than ideal light.  Sorry I don't have the intellectual stature you have for posting here a lot (I've only read every article for the last 3 years). I'll try to remember my place.  I'll also try to remember that not following lockstep makes me a PUMA.  Give me a F--ing break.

But basically, you aren't concerned-- at least not if Obama has to actually take a tough stand.  

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 04:00PM | 0 recs
Sorry Bro, you don't know me, and you don't know

my concerns..

I will admit, I would not throw an entire 4 year agenda to go on a Don Quixote tilting at windmills quest that is NOT going to land any big fish.

I would continue to release information, but, unlike you purist trolls, Obama HAS to keep the Intel community, who are freaking out, on his side-he can't afford a full scale revolt over there.

And, like David Sirrota, you would walk right into a battle the Right wing WOULD LOVE!

Yes, they are the party that PROTECTS America, we are the party that wants to coddle terrorists and prosecute Americans. Get them back on message in a hurry.

This way, we have Liz Cheney and Daddy going on TV looking like the morans they are.

We ARE WINNING this, but sorry, you're not going to get those people in jail?

So Dude, again, as far as your history has shown me, you have SKIPPED the first 2 years of this issue, and NOW that is time to speak out, ALL WE HEAR FROM YOU is Obama is an accomplice.

Tell me something about someone else involved in this?

You know who John Yoo is?

Hell, UC Berkley won't even pull his tenure?

David Addinton?

Judge Bybee?

Heck, there had to be at least a DOZEN democratic Senators, including Edwards WHO KNEW he was the one of the Torture Memo authors? Did they vote against him? Edwards skipped the vote, but did he maybe warn others of who Bybee really was?

Do you know ANY of this?

Put it on the table, do a diary about the CRIMINALS involved here, cause your credentials read late coming Obama basher to me.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 04:24PM | 0 recs
And I don't mind

being thrown in with the President and Harry Reid and being in direct opposition to Sirota.

Whatever, I'm pro-torture, if that's what you want to call me, I don't care, labels from you mean nothing.

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 05:09PM | 0 recs
I sincerely doubt

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.

by Neef 2009-04-24 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I sincerely doubt

He doesn't need to lead, but he shouldn't impede-- and that's what his proclamations are doing.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 02:50PM | 0 recs
Perhaps he simply doesn't believe

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.

by Neef 2009-04-24 03:30PM | 0 recs
You'd probably be better then me...

As soon as Sean Hannity offered to be waterboarded, I would have jumped over the table, and shoved the thermos down his throat...

This diarist somehow THINKS we wouldn't all like to see Dick Cheney in the Hague...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/4/1/12461 1/8923#commenttop

Heck, I just wish it wasn't an Aprils fools thing.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd probably be better then me...

The diarist thinks that some here are willing to let evil slide if it helps Obama's poll numbers.  I think that's been proven in the comments.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 03:53PM | 0 recs
You couldn't prove one and one is two

with a super computer.

What you HAVE proved is if you had even ONE single orginal thought in your head, it would be so lonely as to ask for asylum in another country.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 11:33PM | 0 recs
What you've proved

is that you resort to insults when you got nothin'

by Rooktoven 2009-04-25 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: What you've proved

It's the tone you set.  "You disagree with me, therefore you like torture" is hard to read without imagining you sticking your tongue out.

If you think Hillary Clinton or John McCain would be prosecuting anyone I have a bridge to sell you.

by Jess81 2009-04-25 11:12AM | 0 recs
Pot, Kettle, Black...

Gee, I guess accusing me of condoning torture is a compliment in your house?

Hate to imagine what an insult looks like then.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-25 12:26PM | 0 recs
Wow, another member of OUR T-bag bridgade

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/4/18/207/ 60537#commenttop

We don't care if you get re-elected if this is what you are all about.

Fuck-nuts, who put YOU in charge of the Democratic party.

Obama's popular is screamingly high with non-ideologue dingbats, get a clue will ya.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow, another member of OUR T-bag bridgade

Gee crucify me for the "we", and then call me a tea-bagger.  

Tell me, is the fact that the United States of America carried out torture important or not?

Is it antithetical to what America stands for are not?

Do we want this to happen again or not?

If you don't care (you being any american), it will happen again, only next time it will be more blatant.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 03:01PM | 0 recs
Could you BE more clueless

Look, you're not on a rant against Torture, you're on a rant against Obama.

But, nice 5th grade debating trick, yes, WE ALL are in favor of torture.

Tell us about YOUR LONG history here of diaries talking about Feinstien and Rockefeller and ALL the folks who signed on?

Tell us about your numerous diaries about Alberto on this subject?

Sorry, bro, I was arguing about this when you were just someone who dug John Edwards hair.

There is NO national political will for tribunals, trials, or prosecutions.

Ain't gonna happen. And the Republicans WOULD LOVE this to be a battlefield to fight on.

Right now, WE have the advantage on this argument.

Releasing the memos, and bringing this to light is a net gain.

But, if you think the aggreate of Americans wants Obama to spend his time on this, you are a T-bagger.

This outrage at Obama is a blogosphere left wing tnsumai, a media blitz. 90% of the population would not put this in the top 20 things Obama should be focused on.

But, you want to, what, Primary him? Impeach him?

Hey, Edward's isn't busy, maybe you can organize his 2012 campaign?

If not, then go back to default, it is where you belong.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Could you BE more clueless

You are arguing for expedience over morality.  If there is no national political will for trials it's because the facts (despite some document leaks) are still being obfuscated.  

What advantage do WE have if we don't press the issue?  My take is it fizzles and is forgotten.  The arguments I hear here seem to be that because this is a sticky argument (or not immediately politically advantageous) for Obama that it should be let go.  

Do I want to impeach or primary him?  No.  I want him to do the right thing, not the easy thing.  By the way-- find a single Tea bagger against torture.  You call me a Tea bagger and then say outrage over this is by the left wing.  Guilty to the latter part.  Don't try to conflate the two concepts, it stretches your credibility.

Also, nice dig on Edwards as a straw man.  I admitted in the name of disclosure I backed him.  Many here did.  That's not the point.  The point is that this thing is going to be whitewashed if Obama specifically comes out against investigations.  If he shuts his mouth and lets it happen that's one thing.  If he hinders it from happening, he's an accomplice.  Good poll numbers or not.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 03:50PM | 0 recs
He's an accomplice?

Yes, again, SHOW ME your long history of bashing THE REAL Accomplices here?

Your diatribes against Feinstien, Rockefeller, Jane Harman, Even Bayh....and JOHN EDWARDS?

He was on the Intelligence committee.

Here's a shocker for you, Rook.

Chances are, HE saw those Torture Memos AND, like the REST of the Democrats on that committee, he signed off on it.

Care to debate THAT? All the rest of them were briefed, no reason to believe John was not.

No hero's here, my friend, but your gun is aiming at only ONE direction here, so I give you no points, a late comer and just on an anti-Obama rant.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: He's an accomplice?

Edwards aint the issue.  He's not the President, Obama is.  Just because I didn't write against Feinstein and Rockefeller doesn't mean I supported them.   I don't habitually write essays against rape either, that doesn't mean I condone what's going on in Darfur.

Your position seems to be that because I didn't write essays about certain dubious individuals I tacitly support them and thus can't criticize Obama.  That's absolute BullSh--.  Those in the intel committee can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, and if their careers are ruined because of an investigation, so be it.  

You're reaching right now.  The DINO clowns on the intel committee can't stop a torture investigation with their pronouncements.  Obama can and is.  End of story.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: He's an accomplice?

The reason everyone is making the other candidates an issue is because you did, and you wrote the diary.

Did you look at your title?  It's not "torture should be prosecuted" or "Mr. Obama, don't stand in the way of justice" or anything of the sort.  It's "why did we bother".  It's all about how you were right all along in thinking that Obama was more conciliatory than your other two choices.

Now that everyone is picking your premise apart you'd like to change it.  I don't blame you.

by Jess81 2009-04-25 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: He's an accomplice?

Actually the intelligence committee has little to no control on interrogation policies. First they are briefed and asked to move on. Second because they are bound by secrecy they cannot speak out in public against it but can only object privately, which Rockefeller says he did. However, if there is an investigation and if it surfaces that the Democratic senators were complicit in torture/war crimes, they should also face punitive measures under law.

by tarheel74 2009-04-24 04:20PM | 0 recs
Yes, but what are the chances those democrats

Knew that Bybee was the author of the CIA tortue memos...

Rockefeller objected?

Want to see How Rockefeller Voted on Bybees confimation:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=108&session=1&vote=00054

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, but what are the chances those democrats

Like I said everyone who is complicit should be prosecuted. Period. I have been reading your argument for practicality because Obama has bigger agenda but tell me how many conservatives signed on the stimulus package? or for that matter why are conservatives blocking Sebelius? Or for that metter why are the Democrats thinking of using reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. The truth is bipartisanship is lip service, it is dead. Now for Obama to not go ahead with actual enforcement of the law for the sake of bipartisanship is morally wrong and politically pointless because conservatives are not supporting him now (in fact they are cheering for his failure and trying their best for that) and will not support him in future.

by tarheel74 2009-04-24 04:41PM | 0 recs
He WILL Get some of those folks to go for some

of this agenda...I'm not talking about Republicans.

Besides, you can't honestly think you can bring somone on the Intelligence committee up on charges?

Did you hear the defense for Yoo yet? And, it's a pretty good one.

He was only giving HIS OPINIONS?  

He didn't autorize torture OR torture anyone.

Bingo, he is off the hook?

And, as I said, you guys are screaming at Obama?

Tell me, how many letters have you written to the dean of the Berkely Law School, Enderly?

YOO STILL HAS TENURE!!

Come on, show me this isn't just about bashing Obama?

It sure looks like it for Rook here.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: He WILL Get some of those folks to go for some

Jeezus Wash, who owns the bully pulpit?  Damn straight I'm bashing, because he is the one who has the ability to push this matter forward or let it fall by the wayside.  It certainly seems as if he deems it expedient to the latter. God forbid we offend the right wing lunatic fringe.

This crap of not about not being able to criticize Obama over something he absolutely deserves criticism for, smacks of republicanism.  

I'm glad to count myself in the ranks of Olbermann and Sirota here.  

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

 I started out wanting Edwards, too. But I realized at some point that he was fraudulent and unliked by most of the people in America, so I stopped. So far, it's working out pretty damn well.

by QTG 2009-04-24 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

If you look closely at the people with the biggest bash hammer and the strangest "Obama Derangement Syndrome," it seems to come loudest and strongest from the Edwards fan corner.  Who would write "Why did we bother?"  That is as ignorant as it gets, considering the alternative of having McCain/Palin running the executve branch.  

I am sorry that his followers felt jilted by the primary process, then again by his philandering which would have cost us the election once discovered, but lashing out in a huff with tons of Nazi references and claims that there is no difference whatsoever between Obama and any Republican?  Not a good way to deal with the pain that came with being an Edwards supporter.

by devilrays 2009-04-25 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: He WILL Get some of those folks to go for some

That is the precise reason why we need a commission or a prosecutor, so we can hold people accountable. We have had war crimes tribunals where people were sent to prison or even death for just writing insidious literature let alone memos authorizing torture. I have my doubts whether any of this (commission or prosecutor) will happen, but with the continuous drip, drip of more and more incriminating material, this administration's silence will become more and more unjustifiable and legally untenable.

by tarheel74 2009-04-24 05:22PM | 0 recs
Yes, but they weren't Americans

when we do it, it's ok because we're on the right side.

What? you don't think the drip drip of information is the administration's attempt to move public opinion against torture?

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 05:42PM | 0 recs
I'll be honest here

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.

by Neef 2009-04-25 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why did we bother?

yeah you're right. you've convinced me. obama's just Bush 2.0. how could I have not seen it?

umm, seriously, bitching about the president like this and constructively criticizing him to exert pressure from the left are two different things.
it would be nice if people learned the difference.

by Todd Beeton 2009-04-24 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did we bother?

Constructive criticism entails what.

Gee, Mister President, we love you and all, but couldn't you change your mind about prosecuting torture?

I know you're advising to think of the big picture, and yeah he's better on the environment, and health care.  Granted.

It just seems to me that this is an issue that defines what America is all about-- both to ourselves and the rest of the world.  

When I see the likes Bill Bennett telling the TV audience what we've been doing isn't torture, and Obama basically giving the clowns who did it a free ride, it's a big f--ing let down.

I'm all for the democratic agenda.  But it would be nice if we looked at overarching american values as well.  If this attitude means there is no such thing, or that they died, well that's pretty sad.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did we bother?

Are you serious? Exerting pressure from the left? Has it ever worked? He has backed off the special commission calling it a "witch hunt". What makes you so sure that there will be a special prosecutor, or for that matter any prosecution? When he released the memos he opened a can of worms, because it shows unequivocally that the previous administration signed off on breaking the existing law of the land. The question now remains is after all this posturing will there be any action taken? As for me I don't think anything will happen. People who tortured and who signed off on torture will go scott-free. We will be a nation of morals and laws on paper only.

by tarheel74 2009-04-24 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did we bother?

We will be a nation of morals and laws on paper only.

and this would be different than the past 200 years how exactly?

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did we bother?

Yeah, you're right.  We can never live up to that, so why bother.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 05:13PM | 0 recs
Exactly

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did we bother?

So I guess after all the talk of the last 2 years of campaign and law and Valerie Plame etc etc you are willing to say that when it comes to the big ones like torture and war crimes this is a nation of hypocrites. Well I guess we should let Scooter Libby out of prison because all he did was commit perjury...chump change really.

by tarheel74 2009-04-24 05:16PM | 0 recs
uh yeah

Have you not been paying attention? Of course we're a nation of hypocrites when it comes to torture and war crimes.

It's not torture or a war crime when WE do it...duh!

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: uh yeah

then why the posturing? I guess Democrats and the Obama administration are hypocrites after all.

by tarheel74 2009-04-24 05:24PM | 0 recs
To appease the left

duh.

And if Al-Qaeda launches another terrorist attack on American soil, I would expect the administration to start up torturing again...with the blessings of the American people.

Just like last time.

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 05:39PM | 0 recs
Bingo

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.

by Neef 2009-04-25 04:58AM | 0 recs
Rather than pile on . . .

Let me point out the problems with your diary.

1) You start right off the bat sounding like a concern troll.

Yet...  My fear about Obama was always that he would push for consensus to the detriment of real progress-- that he would try to be "reasonable" (read concessionary) with the right wing.

And then there is this claim. Absurd beyond belief.

The problem with electing milquetoast democrats is they don't accomplish what they could if were willing to fight, and afterward the public thinks the left is discredited, even if the policies of the left never get enacted.

2) Next really?

He is refusing to prosecute torturers and those who authorized them in the name of conciliation.

Yes he has been fairly consistent about not prosecuting. However he has also said it is not his decision, but Holders. As it should be.

Failure to stand up to Wall Street. Wee I'm sure you'll probably get some agreement. However I see it differently. When Wall St. moans the the government is getting too involved that sounds pretty good to me.

And please do not go making pronouncements in my name:

f you want our respect,

He has my respect. And also take him at his word that we no longer torture.

by jsfox 2009-04-24 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Rather than pile on . . .

I think my point about milquetoast dems is valid.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Rather than pile on . . .

maybe, but trying to connect it to Obama is not. And my friend that is what you did.

by jsfox 2009-04-24 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Rather than pile on . . .

actually I think tying it to Obama is apropos.  He's with Harry Reid on this one.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: What's it feel like

to be humiliated in race after race and marginalized in poll after poll and ridiculed by everyone, to be left in the cold with the likes of Michelle Bachman and Michael Steele?

And to be pwned repeatedly and often by a bunch of milquetoast Democrats?

I'm serious. How's that working out for you?

by QTG 2009-04-24 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: What's it feel like

Dude, I've voted a straight democratic ticket for the last 20 years.  I think I have the right to use the label "milquetoast democrat".

It used to be that democrats could disagree with leadership and not march lock step.  It's one thing that made them "not republicans".

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 04:23PM | 0 recs
Wait a minute

while I re-read everything you've posted here....

As far as that bullshit about you voting Democratic, it doesn't pass the smell test.

by QTG 2009-04-24 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait a minute

Like this?:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/8/22492 0/5166

So supporting Edwards made me a repub? That might be news to the 30-40% here who backed him in early 08.  Try re-reading again before you start labeling statements as bullshit that which you have no clue about.  Or do you need to see bank statements showing donations to the likes of Kerry, Dodd, John Edwards, and Martin O'Malley and Moveon.

Not everyone who disagrees with Obama on occasion (and this is a HUGE disagreement) is a freeper trying to spread discord.  Sometimes people just want our side to have a conscience and a spine.  

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 05:06PM | 0 recs
No

but diaries like this SCREAM of some PUMA or deadenders trying to start a fight to make them feel better because they're so damn miserable that the guy they lost to is so popular and people approve of him.

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure

 smells Republican.

by QTG 2009-04-24 06:29PM | 0 recs
Well brain damage does affect the sense of smell

Thus when you crack open your head and spew crap everywhere it probably affects what you perceive around you as well.

Name one republican criticizing Obama for NOT prosecuting torture.  Your accusations are ignorant to say the least.

Oh wait.  I must be a Republican plant advocating positions from the left to undermine Democratic unity.  That and Rush told me to vote for Hillary.

You guys can do better than that.  Seriously--  are you guys THAT afraid of criticism of Obama?  I must say the true republican behaviour is that of those who castigate anyone who dares question dear leader.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re:

"Dear Leader"

"Nazis"

"Nuremberg Trials"

Maybe someone should cool it a bit with the Nazi references aimed at Obama here.  Next those who approve of Obama (all 92% of us Democrats and 99 of us progressives) will be accused of being akin to Hitler's followers.  

by devilrays 2009-04-24 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re:

was supposed to read:

92% of us Democrats and 99% of us progressives.

by devilrays 2009-04-24 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: You exposed your Puma and or

Republican Boner Fidos with:

'dear leader'

You got the STANK

by QTG 2009-04-25 06:35AM | 0 recs
The torture issue

has little to do with the Presidency or its current occupant. Investigating this matter is for the Attorney General and for those in the Congress who have the power of subpoena.

The President has done his job in assuring that the practices have been stopped. But the investigation is not in the President's hands.

by Charles Lemos 2009-04-24 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The torture issue

Charles, now that the president has quashed any possibility of a congressional commission calling it a "witch hunt", do you really think he will ask his AG to set up a special prosecutor for this? Just today I heard on Hardball that Obama has even ruled out a special prosecutor, so what remains now, the justice department and the AG (who incidentally is a political appointee).

by tarheel74 2009-04-24 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The torture issue

Well, I am not sure he can quash a Truth Commission if Congress wishes to proceed with one. It's clear that he's not for it but I think that's because he wants to protect the CIA agents. A "witch hunt" at the CIA is not in the national interest. But letting this process play out is. I don't think that this is a political matter at this point but rather a judicial/legal one. It's up to the Congress to assert its oversight capacity. My view is that pressuring Congress is the tact to take. Beyond the torture issue, having Congress take the lead on this would serve to restore the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches.

by Charles Lemos 2009-04-24 05:40PM | 0 recs
But he is against an independent commission...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042304314. html

I think we need one.  Obama says he doesn't want to "litigate the past".

Isn't prosecuting criminality "litigating the past"?

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 04:20PM | 0 recs
That which prompted my diary

From a reader on TPM:

What makes Obama tick?

That persons says it better than I can. A whole lot of TPM readers (and the editors) seem to echo these sentiments.  

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 04:39PM | 0 recs
We get you didn't come up with this yourself

We have been flooded with borrowed angst from people that actually know little about the complexity and WHO is actually to blame here.

But, we get it, it's time to blame Obama...

You blame Obama....

You're even kind of late to the party it seems.

I was there a week ago.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/4/18/207/ 60537#commenttop

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 04:44PM | 0 recs
I get you can't hold Obama resonsible for anything

It's all someone else's doing.  I get it.

I also get that HE has the power to do the right thing, and he is instead playing the weasel game, and some of his supporters, like in the primaries will never, ever hold him accountable, or acknowledge his fuckups.

I get it.   Forgive me for not reading all your diaries.  My stomach doesn't digest raw apologetics that well.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 05:11PM | 0 recs
I guess so!

Primary Wars Restart Attempt FAIL!

by DTOzone 2009-04-24 05:14PM | 0 recs
Who wants your apology?

You're just running through here ranting, don't expect to see you for another six months.

These are boards supported by knowledgable folks, actually interested in being part of a community, with ideas to exchange.

You're just a pissed off dive-bomber, a one note johnny, thin on actually knowledge of the subject who read someone ELSES rant and decided to show how cool you were by ranting here.

We see it a lot, no biggee

You will probably have better luck at TPM or Talk left, or even the Confluence?

River-daughter is always looking for new Obama bashers?

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Who wants your apology?

<snark>Yeah TPM is full of ignorant people...</snark>

Maybe I'll fit in better if I do daily jerk offs here like you.

I'm not ranting, I just don't let ad hominem condescension from those who like to hear themselves talk go unanswered.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 07:10PM | 0 recs
Fuck yeah!

Let's try an experiment here...

How long will it take you realize that you fit in better at PumaPAC?

Inquiring minds, etc.

by TexasDarling 2009-04-24 07:52PM | 0 recs
You couldn't catch an orginal thought

If someone fired it at you from a cannon?

Once a Year Diary Boy, here's a tip.

Next time you're telling us how outraged you are,
don't admit you basically read another diary on another site and got all worked up.

Probably THAT guy had your orginal thought for you?

No, you wouldn't fit in here. Smart people who do need to copy others for their voice post here.

See you in about a year?

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 11:28PM | 0 recs
Why did you bother?

This effort comes almost exactly one year after your last diary.   It is not as if you are offering anything new here, something that hasn't been regurgitated time and time again over the last 10 days.  Since this is really a vanity diary merely echoing what other commenters said elsewhere, why did you bother?  

BTW, the trashy reference to Nazis and the Nuremberg trials was shocking in its target overshoot perhaps a week ago when introduced by Rosenberg on Openleft (wayyyy over the top reference for cheap effect.)  Re-enacted today it just makes you look like a Rosenberg/Sirota dittohead on the "bash Obama" bandwaggon.  

by devilrays 2009-04-24 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did you bother?

I bothered because this means something to me.  I took a break from posting to a lot of places after the primaries-- though I still read MyDD everyday and lurk.  You seem to be taking the line that if I don't speak up often I can't at all.  That would make for an interesting site and an interesting country.

I am offering a reaction to a statement that has just been made.  My problem was with the backing off.  If you're OK with it good for you.  I think it was an act of political cowardice.  Saying so, despite what a few people in this thread think, doesn't make me a republican, or bitter.  It makes me disappointed in a guy that I made myself like.

I'm going to exit with the end of Paul Krugman's commentary in todays NYT:


It's hard, then, not to be cynical when some of the people who should have spoken out against what was happening, but didn't, now declare that we should forget the whole era -- for the sake of the country, of course.

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, whereappropriate, be followed by prosecutions -- not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws.

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn't about looking backward, it's about looking forward -- because it's about reclaiming America's soul.


by Rooktoven 2009-04-24 07:30PM | 0 recs
Wow, more copy and paste....

Keep working on it..

They banned Caro, we need another stellar copy and paste artist....

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-24 11:31PM | 0 recs
How dare anyone copy and paste a quote....

Why don't you hit up Jerome to ban me? I'd be interested to hear his take.

As for the cut and paste-- so now you're not allowed to quote others?  It wasn't in my post, and it was 3 short paragraphs.  Who made you god of what is appropriate to place in a post?  My hunch is that because you can't possibly disagree with Krugman with out looking like a complete ass, you ignore the substance of the quote and attack that I dared quote someone.

So I assume you're against Krugman too.  I'd rather be on his side, Sirota's, and Olbermann's rather than be a lickspittle who can't acknowledge when Obama is wrong.

As for the Dear leader commment referenced above-- my point is that to lick the boots of the president is unseemly when republicans do it. It's no better when democrats can't brook any criticism of their guy.

So go ahead and label me a Puma, or a republican.  All you prove is your ignorance.  I stand by my statement that Obama is being a coward on this matter.  That goes for anyone who thinks we should let this matter go in the name of political expediency.  

Things don't magically get better just because Obama's in office.  This country needs to cure itself from evil, less the evil festers and spreads.  Accountability is not an easy sell-- but then political courage is never about what doing what is politically popular.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-25 10:29AM | 0 recs
Can't you even follow the stock victimhood script?

You're supposed to first claim

"Why do you want to censor my free-speech? Don't Obama supporters believe in the First Amendment?"

THEN you go for for, "why do you want me banned?"

I guess you are better at getting your content thought from Sirrota et all, but you still need lessons in the fine art of uniformed feigned outrage victimhood.

Can I recommend Allegre's Corner, or The Confluence for some remidial work?

Those folks have it down to a science over there...

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
I'm not the victim, it's Rule of Law in America

Seriously jack,

Why don't you push to get me banned for this?  It should be easy.  I'm sure if you complained to the right people you could ban my name and IP adress. Consider it a challenge for your considerable skills of eloquence and persuasion.

Why don't you slam Krugman while you're at it, and Olbermann too, and TPM.  Throw in Armando too (or maybe not, he didn't tow the "party line").  I really want to hear how Krugman is screwing things up for Obama and the progressive agenda.

Pumas, everyone of them.

At least if you're going to label have a fucking clue about where people stand.

by Rooktoven 2009-04-25 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not the victim

That's some exaulted company you're putting yourself in.  Other than Armando, who couldn't poor piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.  He's the Bill Kristol of the blogosphere - everything he predicts turns out wrong but he still has a job.

But anyway, show me something by Krugman or Olbermann that begins "why did we bother?" and includes an autobiographical aside about how he was right all along and his choices were better.

by Jess81 2009-04-25 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: How dare anyone copy and paste a quote....

"It's no better when democrats can't brook any criticism of their guy."

"rather than be a lickspittle who can't acknowledge when Obama is wrong."

That is NOT what you have done here. You are like the idiot on openleft (his handle escapes me right now) who claims that "we" are all in opposition to Obama, that "he is the enemy."  What does "Why did we bother" mean?  Why did we bother to elect Obama?  In comparison to just letting McCain/Palin take the reigns?  Are you insane?  There is not a single person in the universe who will like every single one of any president's decision, right or left.  It does not happen.  Even his strongest supporters will eventually object to some of Obama's decisions.  That is a far cry from macking a fool of yourself by asking one of the most idiotic questions on a progressive blog:  "Why did we bother."  If you don't have at least 10 answers ready for that one ALREADY (after 100 days) then you can't really be a progressive.

by devilrays 2009-04-25 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: THE idiot at OpenLeft?

LOL.  Well, that one is an extreme case.  He claimed during the cabinet selection process (before the inauguration) that Obama must be opposed, that he is the enemy, and that "we" would not take it anymore.  Sounded like a nutty freeper, and I told him so.

by devilrays 2009-04-26 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: How dare anyone copy and paste a quote....
Why don't you hit up Jerome to ban me?

LOL!  Given his past performance as a moderator, I can only assume you're joking.  Or, to put it more crudely, I'm sure he'll ban you the moment you remove your rhetorical lips from his ideological cock.
by TexasDarling 2009-04-26 05:13PM | 0 recs
High roading it I see.

Projecting from your back alley days?

by Rooktoven 2009-04-26 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: High roading it I see.

Hey, at least I got a nickel bag for sucking off Jerome...

by TexasDarling 2009-04-26 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re:

You seem to be taking the line that if I don't speak up often I can't at all.  That would make for an interesting site and an interesting country.

Posting every once in a while would help to combat the impression that you came here just to crap over the board.  

Look at your comments/behavior in this thread.  Since you don't post, why bother and come here to insult gratuiously those who disagree with you?

Just one of several examples:

"I'll put you down as one in the "pro torture" camp.  Sorry to speak for you."

That in response to a poster stating that your use of "we" and "us" makes it appear that you are speaking for all of us.  So, in response you chalk the poster off as "pro torture"?  How idiotic of a leap is that?  Apparently your contention is that Obama is "pro torture" as well, despite the fact that he put an immediate stop to torture.  Don't let facts get in the way.

by devilrays 2009-04-25 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Why did you bother?
This effort comes almost exactly one year after your last diary.

Extreme constipation.  Give the poor dude a break.
by TexasDarling 2009-04-24 07:53PM | 0 recs
As Charles pointed above it is not for the

President to decide whether to pursue prosecutions or not. It is upto AG Holder to decide the best course of action. I agree with PO that some Bush administration officials who were responsible for breaking the law and providing the legal justification thereof might face prosecuting. I don't think CIA employees involved in the investigations where torture (enhanced interrogation) tactics were employed would face prosecution...

As far your diary goes, I think critiquing PO's actions are fine as long it is not the PUMA histrionics.

by louisprandtl 2009-04-25 04:17AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads