General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPres. Obama is hoping that we're goddamn idiots out here, still cowed by talk of 9-11
Last edited Fri Aug 1, 2014, 07:51 PM - Edit history (2)
. . .who knows? He may be right.
In his remarks today, he takes his first stab at explaining away the Bush-era tortures - as if there was some national imperative that we excuse away renditions and torture.
from the National Journal:
Obama addressed post-9/11 America in remarks about the Central Intelligence Agency. "We tortured some folks," he said. "We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell, and the Pentagon had been hit, and a plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this."
He continued: "A lot of those folks were working hard and under enormous pressure, and are real patriots. But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong." The president also said that he has "full confidence" in CIA Director John Brennan, despite the agency admitting this week that it had hacked Senate computers.
Is that the best he can do . . . mouth the same mind-numbing drivel about 9-11 and terror that Bush and his cronies used to deflect blame and accountability from their anti-constitutional abuses?
The findings that he's deflecting blame from on behalf of the Bush administration aren't the product of anything he's done. They're the work of a diligent and thorough Senate investigatory committee which his CIA did everything in their power to slow and conceal.
What about CIA Chief Brennan's attempts to intimidate and discredit the investigators of that report he's explaining away? All of this 'confidence he's falling all over himself to heap on Brennan ignores the amazing and absolutely damning admission by his CIA director that he had, in fact, engaged in surveillance of the very Senate committee which produced the report he's referring to and, incredibly, lifted documents related to their investigation of his agency right out of their computers.
Not only did Brennan spy on the committee staffers, his agency lawyers tried to have the staffers arrested for possessing critical documents obtained through the procedure the CIA had insisted on.
We don't need lectures from Pres. Obama about the dangers of 9-11. Aside from the killings perpetrated by bin-Laden and his accomplices, real and serious damage was done to America in the way that Bush, Cheney, Tenant, and others took advantage of the nation's fears and embarked on a mission to tear down decades of civil liberties and privacy protections of American citizens; and embarked on an opportunistic war of aggression in Iraq which created even more individuals bent on harming the U.S. and our interests.
Refusing to seek prosecution for the Bush-era torture and rendition abuses amounts to retroactive approval, no matter what lip service he offers us about his objections; no matter how many times he says the word torture with concern and consternation; no matter how the word 'patriots' falls from his lips like some papal absolution.
We should have expected more from the Bush White House. Understanding of the stakes for our nation didn't begin years after Bush stood on that pile of rubble and humanity and declared that he intended to commit our nation to his reckless intention to flail out with our military forces like a frightened animal. Most of us recognized right away that care and caution was required to set the nation right again.
We can judge for ourselves where President Obama has reversed the vestiges of Bush and Cheney's opportunistic militarism (we can certainly give him credit for the killing of bin Laden), or determine for ourselves whether or not he has adopted or co-opted planks of Bush's 'terror war.'
Bush traveled to New York's 'Ground Zero' looking for a pile of rubble and a bullhorn to elevate himself and talk down to us from some lofty perch. In his statement at the signing of the "anti-terrorism," Patriot Act, in October 2001, six weeks after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, President Bush claimed that the measure would counter the threat of enemies that "recognize no barrier of morality and have no conscience." He sought to assure that the measure "upheld and respected the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution." He pledged to enforce the law with "all of the urgency of a nation at war."
However, Bush neglected to tell us which war he was referring to. The anti-terrorism measure was cobbled together in a few short months to take political advantage of the urge in Congress for a legislative response to the terrorist attacks, despite the president's claim that the bill was "carefully drafted and considered." It was a direct assault on the liberty, privacy, and free expression of all Americans.
From that document came a flood of legislative 'remedies' that would take advantage of the administration's blanket excuse of 'national security' that they and their minions in Congress draped over every stalled piece of legislation that could be remotely tied to their 'war on terror'.
Later in his presidency Bush was desperate to revive and re-animate the demoted specter he had called his "prime suspect" in 2001. He justified his protection scheme in his reelection effort with a series of speeches in which he was methodical and zealous in his elevation of bin-Laden; carefully reciting the most offensive and threatening of the terrorist's statements and dispatches.
Dredging up all of the offensive rhetoric from Bush's 'terror war' is designed to re-inflate those emotions that were so raw right after the horror unfolded; that uncertainty and anxiety which made Americans fold in the face of Bush's consolidation of power.
John Brennan, an intelligence official under George Tenet, lead Barack Obamas review of intelligence agencies and helped make recommendations to the new administration. Brennan had supported warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition under Bush. It's understandable that he would seek to stifle and obfuscate from anything he and his former employers might have had a hand in.
What's not understandable is why President Obama sees a need to cover for the previous administration - not unless you consider that his own might well have engaged in some of the same abuses. Despite all of the talk from President Obama there have been reports that rendition abuses actually continued under his watch. There are even reports that torture has continued to be a practice on our nation's behalf in other countries where the law or morality permits.
Those are the concerns that Americans should expect this president to address behind this Senate report. We certainly deserve more than cheap propaganda designed to deflect blame from war criminals.
related:
Let's talk a little more about why the CIA was 'spying' on the Senate Intelligence Committee
Blecht
(3,803 posts)It's really as simple as that.
I can't believe we have a fucking Democratic President making excuses for the worst kind of criminal behavior.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Should have known that the in our party would turn this into something it's not.
No. Better. Than. The. Teabaggers.
bigtree
(85,998 posts). . . wanting Bushites prosecuted for their crimes makes us 'teabaggers.' Got it.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Most decent human beings can see Obama is aiding and abetting criminals. That makes him one too. How about declassifying the 28 pages from the 911 report that democrat Sen. Bob Grahmm and now some republican house reps say implicated Bush covering for the Saudis and another middle eastern ally that would turn America on its head? Do the intelligence agencies have video of Obama cheating in his wife or something else to make him spout this gibberish. He totally flip flopped since 2008.
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)...since there's no groundswell demand (other than a handful of bloggers) to prosecute anyone.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and bring about prosecutions, or is the concern not actual prosecutions but that he didn't express the requisite rage you expect?
What is this "criminal" in the White House supposed to do single handedly about this issue so as not be considered a criminal? What do you think he can do?
What exactly have you done to try to compel congress to sign on to the International Criminal Court? Does the fact that such crimes are handled internationally lost on you? Is the fact that the Constitution requires congress to ratify treaties, such as signing on to the Court, lost on you? Is does the fact that investigations into past abuses in US history have been carried out by congressional committees escape you? What precisely have you done to pressure congress to 1) either investigate war crimes, or 2) ratify US participation in the International Criminal Court?
The President should wave his magic wand and deliver what you demand, while you are responsible for doing noting to pressure congress to actually take the steps necessary to bring about prosecutions?
Or is it simply "ignorant" people who pay attention to technicalities like the actual Constitutional powers of the Presidency?
And why prey tell are you enraged about this suddenly today rather than six years ago when he made clear he would not be seeking prosecution of Bush officials? Is it all because of what was on the TeeVee? Is what passes over your TV set really what matters? It's all about the fact the President spoke about the issues without the rage you think necessary rather than the actual jurisdiction of issues like war crimes? Or the fact that the International Criminal Courts exist precisely because the political systems are woefully ill-prepared to deal with such crimes?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Under what legal basis? I know there have been civil suits.
The reason the International Criminal Court exists is because political systems are ill-equipped to handle such crimes. Ultimately, the solution, I believe, lies in ratifying the treaty to join the ICC. I fully support anything we can do on DU to make that happen. It seems to me that expecting Obama to deliver what people want while refusing to act ourselves is not much different from supporting the absence of prosecution. Of course, signing on to the court doesn't guarantee those people here want to see indicated will be. It merely establishes international jurisdiction.
There is a concept in human rights law called universal jurisdiction. That is the basis for the Spanish Court's acting against Pinochet and in some other cases. The problem is getting courts in the countries where the indicted is located to abide by such legal rulings.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I also said I support mobilization to pressure congress to act on ratifying US membership in the ICC.
I don't think either point was unclear.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Equal under the law.
Dead to rights on criminal conspiracy to start, they can cry about their shitty memos all they want.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The man who can bomb entire countries can't call out torture more then a dismissive,"hey...we tortured some 'folks'". You don't think he knows about the stuff we are still not allowed to see? He could use the bully pulpit like Reagan did. If you are going to excuse torture by saying "hey man what can he really do...what can any of us do...it's just the way it is ...accept it" then we really are screwed. I think other countries should try that excuse. If you haven't noticed Obama just like Clinton in '93 gave a Bush a pass probably because of some kind of threat but if he can't stand up for people then maybe he should go manage a Wall-Mart and leave leader of the free world for someone with some courage. All he did was set the stage for Jeb Bush in 2016 with an administration of all the usual suspects just like Clinton did for GW Bush. Have you seen the photos of Bill Clinton drinking beers with Bush Sr in the late 70s and early 80s? Have you heard Bush Sr quote publicly after 2000 that he calls Bill his 5th son. Politics has become a club...a scam perpetrated on the American people where cultural divisions are emphasized but behind the scenes they are sitting in each others laps and laughing all the way to the bank...prosecution free whether it's torture or fleecing the Treasury. And you're correct...blogging about it seems pointless when so many have already bought into the lie. I'm sure everyone will be back mad as Hell when Jeb or Rand wins in 2016 but honestly Jeb=Hillary so I can't wait to see what BS they come up with next.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Not the actual absence of prosecution for war crmes. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
It is upsetting he doesn't rise to the level of a great President like Regan who presided over the near genocide of the Maya of Guatemala, as well as the mass graves as El Mozote and widespread torture throughout Central America as taught through the School of the Americas, but they can't all be as great as Gipper.
Did you vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012? If so, why did you vote for a criminal?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Well at least you have suspicions and aren't a robot. I'm impressed. I'm sick of just words but insulting words are worse. And you are just as bad. I fought for El Salvador. I coordinated protests in the streets with the Latin American Solidarity Committee. You're questioning if I'm a republican because I'm not in lock step with your centrist in charge. People like you are what makes me sick these days. I say use hardball tactics like Reagan did with the bully pulpit instead of being spineless, smug wimps all the time. It's Obama that is infatuated with Reagan and gushes over him...not me. Are you just trying to be disruptive? Next you going to tell me I have to support wholesale murder of Palestinian children because our government does and if I don't I'm some kind of Libertarian republican washout? Do some soul searching. Our politics isn't a game with our team and their team. Those teams are both playing for the US Olympic Team of death and destruction for dollars and just because I was a DEMOCRAT activist for decades doesn't mean I'm a lackey for injustice. You can apologize later.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)bring about prosecution for war crimes? Your point seems to suggest such a thing results from public opinion.
If you think the US War on Central America a travesty, why posit Reagan approvingly against Obama on the issue of torture?
YOU chose the comparison on this subject, not I. You happened to choose the President with perhaps more blood on his hands than even George W Bush. That was your choice, not mine.
You still haven't said whether you voted for Obama and if so, why you voted for a criminal. It was clear in 2012 he would not prosecute the Bush administration. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, he also made it clear before the election of 2008.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Silence is complicity. He is the leader remember. And I'm soooo sick of people who present false dichotomies and comparisons. If I see you roll over and stick your head in the sand as a bully beats you and I say hit him back then I'm saying you are like the bully? I said use Reagans political tactics not his policies or philosophy...which is good advice after seeing the corporatists in our party make it more spineless and cowardly with each passing year. And I remind you that it is Obama that admires Reagan for much more than just his tenacity. I figured you comprehended this the first time because I wasn't vague. And who the hell do you think I voted for genius?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)That suffices for action for you? False dichotomies and comparisons? That was YOUR comparison, not mine. You chose it. You spoke admirably about Reagan, not me.
There are two possible avenues that I can think of for dealing with war crimes: 1) sign on to the International Criminal Court, which requires ratification from the Senate. 2) a Justice Department investigation and prosecution, which if the President supported (and we have known for six years he does not), speaking about it from the "bully pulpit" would compromise such a prosecution.
None of that seems to concern you, however. You can't as much as bother to think about how an investigation or prosecution could proceed, which suggests to me that is far less important to you than having your rage validated.
I also find strange this notion that the President is supposed to validate people's emotions and bestow upon them everything they want, while they do absolutely nothing to work toward effecting change themselves. This notion of government as Santa Claus is counter-factual and counter-historical. That is not change occurs. You can rant and rave online until time immemorial and nothing will change. it gives the appearance of dissent, however, and that seems to matter more to people than political action.
I don't know who you voted for. If you did vote for Obama, you voted for him knowing he was a criminal. The fact this appeared on your TeeVee yesterday doesn't change the fact that his position on not prosecuting Bush has been clear for six years. If you only figured it out because of the speech yesterday, that is a serious failing on your part.
If Obama is a "criminal," why would you twice vote for a "criminal"? And why would you want a criminal to use the bully pulpit? Knowing Obama is not going to act on torture, the question is do you want to actually do anything about It?
Then there is this rather stunning comment.
Emulate Regan because of corporatists. And you deride my intelligence? How on earth is a politician's saying what you want to hear going to change the influence of money on politics or the fact that under our capitalist system the state functions to promote capital?
Signing on to the ICC strikes me as the most likely means to bring about prosecution of war crimes, either from the period of the Bush administration, US action in Latin America during the 20th century, or anything since. That proposal was defeated during the Bush administration but could be restarted. That is something all of us on this site could participate in rather than simply being angry that Obama hasn't acted. He hasn't acted, and it is clear he will not. The question then becomes do you want to actually do something bout it or just remain pissed off? Is the goal to bring about prosecution of war criminals or to exist in a continual state of anger over this and future Presidents?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Get out much? It's also in bad taste to harass someone about who they voted for. Judge me all you want..,I don't care. I see the facts. Try it sometime.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)bigtree
(85,998 posts)By dint of railing at idiots, one runs the risk of becoming idiotic oneself
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)and get a smiley from you? You're saying everyone must be as cynical as you, or get dismissed as crazy extremists.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The word is that its horrific. So bad people will be in shock. Why do think it's been hidden? To protect national security or agents? Names can be redacted. But when people hear the torture techniques they will call for names and prosecutions. We aren't supposed to be Nazis. People would also go crazy and the country would be turned on its head, according to Dem Sen. Bob Graham, if the 28 pages redacted from the 911 report about Saudi Arabia and Israel were made public.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)How about getting out of the back rooms and cocktail parties and in the public square to actually do something more that just another hollow speech. "hey we tortured some people...soooooooorrrry". Americans have gotten pathetic and apathetic. Anyone who lived through the 70s must feel ashamed of our lack of activism now. All Obama has accomplished has been a neutering of the opposition that grew under Bush and melted away once everyone patted themselves on the back for changing presidents.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Only pursue the viable and immediately achievable bi-partisan compromise !
I should have known that the cheerleaders would be out in force.
If there was torture committed, and the perpetrators are known, where the fuck are the arrests?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Where are the paid online sock puppet profiles defending military contractor interests? I'm sure on the way.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I belong here.
So do you.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Respect for the law and disgust for those that break the worst of them can hardly be called teabagger values. Quite the opposite in fact.
What is breaking the law if not law breaking since you appear to know what it actually is, please explain to a simple guy that doesn't understand how heroic criminality is, I am dying to learn.
OT - I have been dying to find out something, how long have you been afraid of yourself and why? I only ask out of concern
DocwillCuNow
(162 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)boomer55
(592 posts)The rich and powerful are above all that silly nonsense
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)comments right here on DU.
I think it's particularly interesting that you chose those particular websites...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)KarenS
(4,079 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Come on make an argument.
And to use Teabaggers as the insult, how droll.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)It's always the same "people" defending CIA and NSA crimes?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's authoritarianism as described in "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer. Free on the innertubes.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They have a vested interest.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals and schools in self defense if Hamas has put rocket launchers next to them, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said last week at a local town hall, according to the Cape Cod Times.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)has a right to defend itself. George Bush and H. Clinton decided that it was necessary to invade Iraq to "defend ourselves." I am not convinced that dropping bombs on hospitals and schools is necessary for Israel to defend itself. But then I disagreed with George Bush and H. Clinton's decision on Iraq also. How did you feel about invading Iraq?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)But anyone who thinks arrests and prosecutions is a viable option is a goddamned idiot.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Rule of law my ass.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)But people are misdirecting their anger.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)this without any consequence.
Autumn
(45,106 posts)Is that better? Did you miss the part about the CIA admitting that they spied on Congress and his confidence in Brennan ?? This schtick of yours is so familiar but I can't quite place it.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)What?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Enjoy your stay.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Now I understand why I have had great difficulty understanding and/or agreeing with you on almost every other issue DUers generally are pretty clear on.
TORTURE is a WAR CRIME, period. There ARE no excuses for it, or so WE said when we rushed off to our illegal war in Iraq!!
Torture is what Dictatorships do, and what developed nations generally CONDEMN.
But thanks, I understand totally where you are coming from now.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)as I also do.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They are not hard to spot, are they?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)should they be prosecuted for torture?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Teabaggers? You just lost all credibility.
montanacowboy
(6,089 posts)and ditto a thousand times
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Torture is illegal and immoral. Period. Those that participated in it and covered it up should be prosecuted.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)about prosecuting the subjects, but good luck getting the CIA goons to release THOSE names...
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)it WILL become policy with the next GOP president.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)January 22, 2009
. . . a republican president away from revision.
Would Mitt Romney revoke Obamas executive order banning torture?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)to make waterboarding and similar practices unambiguously criminal. If Obama really cared about preventing torture he would have pushed for such amendments.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)few people in the government who'd go along with it, and half the nation would be against it tooth and nail. it's shameful but it's the cold hard reality.
if you did a vague poll saying something like "should people who committed crimes in the Bush administration be held accountable", you'd probably get a majority of americans to vote yes, easily.
if you did a poll spelling it out truthfully; "do you support prosecuting bush and cheney (and rummy and condi) for war crimes and treason, of which the penalty is life imprisonment or death", you wouldn't get a majority voting yes, not even close.
it's a sad reality...
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)one complicit in the crime.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Or even actual polls.
When did the Constitutional amendment pass allowing this?
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You can leave the 9/11 talk for people that have no attention spans. Thanks.
democrank
(11,096 posts)Obama`s handlers must have searched half the night to come up with that vapid admission. The more confidence he has in John Brennan, the less confidence I have in President Obama.
rug
(82,333 posts)This is much better.
NealK
(1,869 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Hell no they're not 'patriots'. They're war criminals.
This is the one thing I think he could, and possibly should be impeached on. Shielding war criminals from the previous administration from being tried for their crimes.
And it's the one thing Republicans will NEVER impeach him on, because so many of those same torturers and those who ordered and approved the tortures, kidnappings, and murders were their top people. In the name of cowardice, they tore apart what little shred of morality the United States might have pretended to claim to commit crimes so foul it took two administrations to bury them for over a decade.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Are now handled in this nation of oligarchs, will have to excuse the Bush/Cheney cabal.
After all, almost everyone in Congress supported these thugs. The few who were brave enough to oppose them, like Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney, all ended up being marginalized. The Hon. Waters spent years in litigation to face down charges of corruption.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and our technological superiority to its own ends.
Meanwhile we have allowed our industrial power and therefore our future technological capacity to be given and sold to foreign countries and foreign investors.
What will we be left with? The legacy of crimes for which this cabal, uncontrolled, unchecked by our legislators, president and courts is leaving to us.
Think Iran. We interfered in Iran's election of a government, and what is our legacy from that criminal act, the murder of Mossadegh and the overthrow of that government.
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).[3][4][5][6]
Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to renegotiate the terms of the company's access to Iranian oil reserves. Upon refusal of the AIOC to cooperate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize the assets of the company and expel their representatives from the country.[7][8][9] Following the coup in 1953, a military government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king),[9] to effectively rule the country as an absolute monarch. He relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[7][8][9][10] In August 2013 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[11][12] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government." [13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Our relationship with Iran has suffered since the intervention of Kermit Roosevelt and the clique, the predecessors of the clique that now hides in our NSA and CIA.
It's very sad. The Republicans like to talk about how our debts will harm our grandchildren and their grandchildren. But the legacy of criminal acts by those who operate in secrecy within the closets of our supposedly democratic government will also harm them, as will our failure to respond to the climate changes that our excessive use of fossil fuels is causing.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)... in terms of making horrid and criminal decisions was W. Even the evil and corrupt Nixon was a great President compared to him.
But the worst ever in leadership of party principles and promises, and enforcing constitutional justice, has to be Obama. We now have to suffer yet another limp and sickening "let's not look backward" speech from that man ... I don't know of a greater wimp to have ever held the office of the Presidency. He shames our nation.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Thousands of times better.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)JaydenD
(294 posts)emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)Ah fuck it, what's the difference.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Dubya going back to his ranch and hiding like a coward.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Miss Plimpton misfiled my receipt so I broke her fingers. Gomez the gardener stepped on my petunias so I whacked him with a shovel.
Poor fellows were just having a bad day. What else could they do?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Too bad he has now taken the issues away from Democratic candidates in the next two elections. Never has a president been better at sabotaging his own party's core values.
So sick of the President Obama bashing OP's in an election cycle
bigtree
(85,998 posts). . . what I wrote in this post is my reaction to what I see as nothing less than a betrayal of almost everything we were protesting for the entirety of Bush's two devastating terms. I'd like to have heard from the President a complete repudiation of Brennan's cabal partner's 9-11 era abuses and constitutional overreaches.
What I got was a Bush-like use of intimidating language about terror designed to make us believe we were too afraid to expect anything better from our nation's leaders. I don't know... maybe Pres. Obama will take another stab at it and knock my socks off when the actual report comes out.
Tell you what, though. I can't even think of congressional elections right now. If our party manages to prevail, or even advance our majority, it will be because voters recognize we stand for something more than just preserving and coddling the status quo. I expect the politicians to provide the impetus for us to vote for them.
I would suggest they find a way to rise above this type of mollycoddling of the worst of our political system and challenge our government to actually do more than just pay lip service to the ideals they mouth to curry our political favor.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The dust hadn't settled after 2012 when people were already posting Hillary for President threads and grand plans to take back the House. We didn't make it to the second inauguration before election talk was going on for the midterms and the next Presidential. So when isn't it an election cycle? Do you have a date or just a general season?
I'd like to know, so I can link to this when after the midterms we aren't in an election cycle until you say so when we're drowning in Hillary for President threads.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)And if he cared about Democrats winning elections in 2014 and 2016, he would not compromise on core Democratic principles, thus losing those issues for Democrats.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)There's always an election cycle, by the way.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)your apt to hear Democrats trying to hold their elected official accountable.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)The site is infested with TROOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLS....!
spanone
(135,844 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)we're blackmailing the entire Legislative & Executive branches. Everyone has dirty little secrets, and if you don't have any, we'll be glad to invent some for you, complete with pictures. Hey, you SURE nobody slipped any child porn onto your hard drive? So fuckin' back off. And double our budget. Or we'll start dropping juicy tidbits in places that will make you regret having ever messed with us.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)Has that law been changed and when was it changed, if so?
bigtree
(85,998 posts). . . but I'll accept DiFi's definition of laws she believed were broken in that search of committee computers and the attempt to intimidate the Senate staff.
from her Senate speech in March:
I have grave concerns that the CIAs search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution, including the Speech and Debate clause. It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function . . .
Besides the constitutional implications, the CIAs search may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)If this thread didn't draw her out, then where is she?
She seems to have disappeared...
As for the OP, right on. It's a goddamned travesty and a great shame and this will tarnish Obama's legacy as the president who allowed them to get away with it as bush's is tarnished for committing war crimes in the first place.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Strange that she didn't have the courtesy to say good-bye to all her buds.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Or nausea.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)In which every single word is a link to one of the others.
I'm not a fan.
Duval
(4,280 posts)NealK
(1,869 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)And fuck anyone who is an apologist for torture.
The Hope-y Change-y thing is really not working out for me.
Disgusting.
rock
(13,218 posts)That's contrary to logic: what you do defines your values. That's what one's values means.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)He is hitching his administration to fucking war crimes.
WTF?
"A lot of those folks were working hard and under enormous pressure, and are real patriots. But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong."
The CIA and law enforcement were under pressure? Real patriots? Fuck that. These 'folks' are criminals.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)surveillance? Is he setting up a, no need to consider the Constitution, re-zoning? No need to consider NATO, or the Geneva Convention. Setting up new TPP accords, to secretly take out terrorist in other countries? Like, no need for other confinements; no need for new Guantanamo Bay units?
We are moving in to a new world order it would seem to me.
Johonny
(20,851 posts)Obama seemed to do it rather gracefully too. He places blame squarely on the people who should be blamed. He puts it in context and manages to make the accusation seems like it is not a baseless partisan attack while doing so. It is everything the GOP is not capable of. Heck now that we can freely say the government broke the law, it wasn't the right thing to ever do even if we give them credit for the best of intentions (most of us wouldn't even give them that Now the report will come out. Will the press bury it or will the report generate enough momentum that congress, the DA, someone actually acts. IDK there are too many people out there that will paint any actions as a partisan attack. Inaction seems to be the name of the game today. We all see the government unable to do anything. The GOP has promised this do nothing is to prevent Obama from damaging the nation. How much damage can the lethargic government do before the people stand up and vote for action? I guess we'll know in Nov.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)all the other branches.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)We don't elect Presidents anymore. We elect puppets. Looks to me like he takes his orders from Brennan, instead of the other way around. I guess what we can expect also is that AG Holder will do nothing, like appoint a special prosecutor. I think the only reason he spoke to the Press today was to get out ahead of the storm that's going to happen "next week" when they let go of that report on the CIA's criminal actions.
So. Will Brennan resign? Even if he does, will it make any difference?
Thanks very much for your thoughtful OP.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)in criticizing the nation he leads, and it's military and law enforcement branches over which he is commander-in-chief.
I think his statements are actually very remarkable. Criticism like that, mild as it was, is pretty damn rare.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Something about realistic expectations for a United States president. It's one thing for a college student or a peace activist to rail against the country and excoriate the depravity of the nation and its government. It's quite another thing for a United States president to do the same thing. Traditionally, US presidents are consistently pro-United States. Electoral politics and all. Strange, that.
Also, the president publicly acknowledged that the United States tortured people. I find that almost astonishing.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)and that our elected officials can do nothing about it. Think about that. This isn't hippy punching, this is flat out saying that our highest elected official is powerless.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I'm saying that the average American doesn't embrace anti-American beliefs or rhetoric and that the kinds of people who run for and win the presidency aren't the kind of people who embrace anti-American beliefs or rhetoric either.
Your idea that the president is "powerless" must be premised on the idea that Barack Obama is truly in his heart a pro-Palestinian, anti-imperialist, Code Pink, anti-war activist and only the hidden powers behind the throne are keeping him reined in.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Obama has been consistent since he was only a candidate. He has never said anything other than expressing America's "unwavering support" for Israel. He's never said anything other than that he would pursue anyone who would harm the country "wherever they are found".
He says this because he believes it. It's who he is. His views are nothing but those of a traditional American politician. Always have been.
I'm not sure I follow your "military coup" argument.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I have no idea where Israel came from in your posts as we are talking about trying to gloss over torture.. But I think, since the rules of Logic have been thrown out the window, I shall now bow out.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Bow out if you will. My point remains the same. Barack has never expressed any desire to pursue charges against US military or security personnel for possible war-crimes that may have been committed before he was in office. Never. In fact, he's consistently said the opposite since he first took office.
Your "military coup" argument is lost on me.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)and going so far as outing a slew of CIA agents and prosecuting them in public, wouldn't fly with the CIA. At all.
I'd expect the CIA to retaliate against anyone participating in the investigation, maybe even key witnesses running into some "accidents".
I think they've become too powerful, and that there's only so much congress or the president can do to keep them in check, which is bad for the country in serious ways.
The torturing bastards should be prosecuted, but I fear our own government is afraid to go after them, for fear of payback...
I bet the CIA has files\ dirt on every high ranking member of government...
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But we should not excuse it. It makes us hypocrites of the highest order to excuse a Democratic President for doing something we would be howling in the streets if a Republican did it.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)this is realistic in the current environment
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Hey, Chelsea Manning, if you're listening, I'm sorry you got sent to prison. Grahamgreen asked me to share something I said with you. I was saying that in reality United States presidents are bound by traditions and beliefs which effectively limit the range of possible actions and responses available to them.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Bound by law. Which takes precedence over tradition and belief.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning. I supported impeachment for GWB. I supported prosecution of American officials, military and security personnel, and government contractors for the many crimes that were committed. I opposed the fundamental ideas behind our "counter-terrorism" approach and our foreign policy in the Middle East, generally.
The United States acted lawlessly. The "enemy combatant" designation that was created by the GWB administration and used to justify violations of US and international law was a cruel and tragic joke. Innocent people were tortured and murdered.
The country in early 2010 was on the precipice of complete disaster. We were in the throes of a simultaneous collapse of the banking, finance, housing, and employment. A catastrophic deflationary spiral and a devastating economic depression was a real and immanent possibility. (I was out of work for almost a year.) On top of that, we were fighting two, full-scale foreign wars.
In 2010, president Obama, house leader Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats decided that pursuing an unquestionably long, consuming, bitter, and divisive constitutional and legal showdown over the actions of the previous administration was "off the table". I can easily understand the reasons why.
President Obama just publicly acknowledged that the United States used torture. That is an astonishing acknowledgement with serious legal implications.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Had the Pres pursued the crimes of the prior admin..
In my view, the R's would have been marginilized for a generation, instead of being able to obstruct progress.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I think the spectacle of an incoming administration pursuing war crimes prosecutions for military and security officials would have immediately become one of the most bitter, partisan, and all-consuming political battles of my lifetime. And considering the backdrop against which this would take place -- an economy on the edge of falling into a irreversible downward spiral and a military fighting in two full-scale foreign wars, I'm saying I can at least reluctantly understand the decisions that were made.
I think it's very likely that the pursuit of war crimes prosecutions would have come at the cost of no health care reform, no Recovery Act, and none of the other things that were accomplished between 2010 and 2012.
And I have the opposite estimation from yours over where sentiment of the American public would have fallen. Rally around the flag, boys. I think it would have been complete and utter electoral catastrophe for the Democratic Party. The "inconvenient truth", I believe, is that the American public at large is much further right than DU, and I think that poll after poll, especially on questions of national security, bear this out.
I rallied, marched, wrote letters, and sent donations to impeach and prosecute the war criminals. It still makes me mad and probably will until my dying day, but I'm not about to abandon my support for the only meaningful opposition to the right-wing GOP over it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)With the R's in disarray, we will get our way.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)and it is up to a point. But the article grabs individual questions from multiple polls and consolidates them into one article. The picture it paints of the American public is both correct and misleading at the same time.
It's not a poll of voters, or likely voters. The questions they grabbed are social justice/cultural issues; there's almost nothing on national defense, national security, counter-terrorism, etc.
And when you look at the links the individual polls, the picture gets less cohesive. The cherry picking of questions smooths over the deep ideological divides that exist between the two major parties.
These are fine polls and fine polling organizations. The picture the article paints of American opinion on social justice/cultural issues is real, but with caveats.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Yet, we are still there.... Why?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)think the country as a whole is sane enough to have done it. for enough politicians to have the guts to do it, and enough of the citizenry being aware enough, or willing, to go along with it. that's just my opinion.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)These cases could and should be an opportunity to identify and remove people from positions of power and trust that they are unfit to hold. As well as refine our processes so that such people do not make their way into those positions in the future.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Give Cheney a heart attack. Just bringing it up might cause an avalanche of questions The Dick might not be able to answer on the Sunday shows.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)As much as some people would like to see a United States president stand up and say something like that -- it isn't going to happen. That's not reality in this country. The president openly admitted that the United States tortured people. That's actually an astonishing thing to witness.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Now they will have to support torture because it is "sometimes necessary when you are afraid"
We got that reasoning from Bush and a TV program called 24.
And now that Obama has stood behind it we have to be also...because if we don't the GOP will win...that is the spin and we are trapped by it.
The state of this union don't look to good right now.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)tactics.. you think the CIA is gonna fork over the names of the torturers?
emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)people who are really running the show in the CIA. As for defunding them, good luck on that. I bet they have dirt on every member of government and would retaliate in a myriad of ways if the congress or president really went after them.
maybe I am overestimating their power, but I consider them a rogue, 4th branch of government that over time, has accumulated enough power to do as they please. I hope I am wrong...
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Rinse and repeat until someone complies or additional funding for prisons to hold them is required.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Someone dreamy and beyond reproach even?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)think the politicians are afraid of them, for good reason.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)and start wibbling zombie-like to the idea that emotional reactions to torture can be too extreme if fighting it involves criticising a Dem president so they'll internally scale down their OWN emotional reaction to it to distance themselves from a suddenly "non-mainstream" left opinion.
Because Obama, in their feverish little heads, IS mainstream left opinion, being a Democratic president.
I'm not joking. That's how you move the left to the right. It happens constantly. It's nothing to do with what he actually says. It's about how his having the "balls" to say it makes people feel.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)No wonder we have no moral authority, no wonder when we try to point fingers at others, those fingers are turned right around and back at us.
I cannot believe I am reading an excuse for torture from the man I supported to end the criminal Bush regime's War on human rights.
If he had talked this way during the campaign, I would never, ever have supported him. Talk about being lied to. That is the most pathetic excuse for War Crimes I have ever seen.
xocet
(3,871 posts)To me, it was important to watch the video of President Obama delivering those words at the end of his statement on Brennan and torture. He believes that it is up to "us" as a country to take responsibility for it - "...so that hopefully we don't do it again in the future."
I am no longer burdened by the belief that he defends any sort of consistent moral position - i.e., Rick Warren, the Too-Big-to-Fail-Bankers, Bush et al, Guantanamo Bay, single-payer health care, Troy Davis, Chelsea Manning, the continued and expanded use of drones, the kill list, Edward Snowden, allowing DNI Clapper to stay on, the current trend towards execution by experiment, etc. He does not have absolute power, but he is far from powerless with respect to any of these situations - especially with Congress as ineffective as it currently is.
Had I known that this were the way he would address the issue of war crimes, I also would never have supported his bid for the Democratic nomination.
At any rate, at least his views are on the record now.
KG
(28,751 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)you can't go after someone for something you are doing as well.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)It is about spying and stealing the files off the computers of the Senate Committee that was investigating them. Do not fall for such crap.
. . . then we get back to whatever they're covering up.
Watch George Tenet defending against what's in the report. Then listen to Brennan's denials and excuses and track the similarities. You can already hear the outline from Pres. Obama today which follows their line almost exactly about the dangers, the fear, and so on excusing the actions.
This is the latest attempt to shield former Bushites from prosecution. For some reason, Pres. Obama is willingly going along with their defenses.
Why did Brennan believe it was necessary to obstruct and interfere in the Senate investigation, besides the obvious defense of his agency; besides the obvious defense of their prerogative in employing the same practices that are being exposed? It's a defense of his former partners in crime, likely a defense of actions in which he was actually involved, at least in some tangential, if not overt, manner.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)Why?
AzDar
(14,023 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I think that the powers are all against us on this forum. Lies, deceptions, miserable half hearted defenses are all we are going to get. Values are one thing, but the law is another. Still, a lot of so called Democrats will tell us to face "reality". Yea, sure.And accepting all this nonsense is "necessary for party unity". Yea, sure!
bigtree
(85,998 posts). . . the manner in which the DiFi and Udall delayed the report (indicating that they were going to demand more reasoning behind the redactions than just a 'no' from the WH indicates that they're not going to roll over and release an incomplete and inadequate accounting.
This move could actually draw more Senators in and get them fired up about presenting the full story. Coupled with the Brennan admission, there is enough impetus now for an investigation into the people inside the agency and outside who are actively working to obfuscate and obstruct the information contained therein. The WH, imo, has opened itself up to Senate scrutiny, as well.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I'm also wondering if Obama has stepped in something by admitting that those acting for the UA engaged in torture. Is this admission a bombshell in legal terms as law suits make their way through the courts?
Does it mean anything, in terms of culpability and accountability of individuals, if the CiC has admitted to torture as a tactic?
bigtree
(85,998 posts). . . if he or his administration keeps standing in the way of a complete release of this report, they're going to attract the attention of Congress. There's going to be some kind of parallel investigation, if only to sort out what Brennan has done.
I keep asking, believing I know full well the answer, why the administration would hinder this report in any way. There has to be something at stake for this administration in the outcome.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Are you trying to have Fitzmas again?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Redacted from the 911 report about Saudi Arabia and Israel. Dem Sen Bib Graham and house members were allowed to read it. They said it would make all of America turn on its head in anger. Tired of apologists and lemmings making excuses to the point where i want to call them obscene names.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)What's even more troubling is the idea that he (and others just like him waiting in the wings) are supposedly the best we can do. That these are the best minds we have to address the tremendous problems we face.
WTF?
- If we're choosing people like this to be our leaders, then we have no right to complain.
K&R
[center]
secondwind
(16,903 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)all about anti-terror right after 911 and for several years thereafter. That's why Bush got away with what he did.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)than it was in the days and weeks immediately after the attack, when we were confronting a crisis and making serious mistakes in the stress of the moment.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Manipulated by warmongers and profiteers.
Not our finest hour.
But REAL and patriotic leadership would have taken us in an entirely different direction. Consider how the Brits reacted to German bombing in WW2.
The Bushies started the terror. But Obama has perpetuated it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And the Brits needed our help to end WW2, so that's not much of an example.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Not prosecuting the criminals who approved and carried out torture is condoning that torture. Shame on President Obama and shame on all of us.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)just the way he hoped it would.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)That's not his speaking voice. His speech writer is taking a plank from the "official" Washington platform regarding how to present what went on under Bush/Cheney.
President Obama doesn't use his "voice" to do so, he's not taking ownership of the idea, he merely inherited a custodial responsibility towards it. That's the light I see it under.
I guess when you come in under the banner of "look forward, not back", it's hard to find a way of talking about criminal behavior that's behind you.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)"custodial responsibility" towards it.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell, and the Pentagon had been hit, and a plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this."
Really? You "understand why it happened."? We were all scared? I doubt that the NSA/CIA Branch of Govment was scared. They were using the terror to push their agenda. Using the terror to justify their actions and now our current president is agreeing with their justifications.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)We have seen how the Republicans have used their position of power over various committees to make absolutely groundless charges against President Obama. The decision of the Obama administration to put this all behind us was a blunder that only embolden the scumbag Republicans when they gained control of the House. The Democrats should have held extensive hearings revealing just how corrupt the Bush administration was in its determination to take us to war. The Republican out right lied to the American people and fabricated evidence for which they should have been held accountable. The fact of the matter if he had pursued the previous administration the Democrats would have never regained control of the House.
President Obama is finally coming to the realization of just how vicious these Republican bastards can be. It is over five years too late. He has allowed the Republicans to take the offensive rather than a defensive position. He is no FDR. That is for sure. People keep saying how he was play three dimensional chess. I would suggest that he was naive at best in believing that these jackals were even human.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I am a little more skeptical.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)polynomial
(750 posts)With a laugh and a chuckle staying in slight humor however there is nothing funny about the law and torture. It is evil with Nazi tendencies.
But thats being real, however, to be more serious a very curious thought occurred to me, that is the Republicans opened the fraud-gates for another razzle dazzle gaming theater with the complicit main stream media in this idea of suing the President for not doing his job.
Here is the perfect chance to use the current denouncement of the Iraq war the momentum of 911 as a wrong war, and to make Bush and Company accountable would fill the definition of turning on their own.
While creating the best game changing tactic, the whole election could turn to their favor to take power all over the place. In other words sue President Obama for not engaging 911 investigations to indict Bush for war crimes. the Democratic Party would lose by a landslide with a platform like that even if it was not carried out.
Talk about a game changer plus a way for the Republicans to get the presidency; then after the election say well didnt find anything wrong in the investigation with the Iraq war. Thats the plan
then the Democratic Party gets punked again.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)and the painful truth.
An important point about torture that is often overlooked
is the the people who engage in it are also grievously damaged . .
So those who order and approve torture are also guilty of
crimes against those they (often) force to carry it out.
This is hard to read, but important.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Tortured-Mind-Of-An-Am-by-Rev-Dan-Vojir-130625-223.html
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)He presented the truth in a very honest way, nobody before him would have put it so plainly, IMO.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I'm so glad we finally have a world leader that feels able to discuss the subject using the same terms as every other human being on the fucking planet. Exceptional!
He's very handsome, too.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)brooklynite
(94,592 posts)I mean, we can't impeach Bush at this point, if Obama's obstructing prosecution of crimes, he deserves to go too, right?
QuestForSense
(653 posts)I think his choice of words MAY have been intended to deflect from John Brennan having lied about raiding the Senate's computer network and deleting the torture report, which is about to be released. No one recalls Michael Hayden saying Diane Feinstein was 'too emotional' when she made those charges? Brennan has said he's sorry (um-hmm), and the President has said: don't get all sanctimonious -- all these folks who tortured were under a lot of pressure from 9/11, and that he still has full confidence in Brennan, who won't be going anywhere. By the way, not a peep from Feinstein.
QuestForSense
(653 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Only a tiny handful in Congress are squawking. You'd think the GOPers, who love calling for cabinet members' heads for political damage, would be all over this--but, they're not. Brennan can act with impunity, that's clear. Obama isn't going to stop him, Congress isn't going to stop him (despite the cheesy Rand Paul faux-protest of his confirmation), no one in the intelligence community is going to stop him, just like with Clapper. The intelligence guys are sticking together, helping each other through this, and everyone in government is going to look the other way. I'm less worried about going after the torturers than I am with the fact that there's been a huge violation by the CIA against Congress (and who knows how many other parts of government) and there seems to be little outcry about it so far. Where's all the newspaper columns? Where's the cable pundits?
QuestForSense
(653 posts)With so many journalists now just stenographers, if nobody's talking, there's nothing to report. They don't even report the silence.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)seem legit, so that when you stir up shit over nominees and strong candidates you will look like a longtime contributed with
CONCERNS over the direction of the democratic party.
I hope most on DU are able to see through all of the bullshit. Better get our goggles out, it's going to get deep in this
place until Dec. 2016.
bigtree
(85,998 posts). . .I've been accused of being in the bag for Hillary.
I've been accused of being in the bag for Barack.
I've been accused of working to politically damage Hillary.
I've been accused of working to politically damage the President.
Interesting, though, right out there - all over the internet - is my unflagging advocacy on behalf of the issues I've raised.
Google bigtree here at DU . . . google my real name (not a secret) on the web. Get the facts before you recklessly lob your own political charges against someone you obviously know nothing significant about.
btw, Pisces, I got here almost five years before you.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Ignore those ridiculous accusations
I think I hardly ever agree with you , but you are steadfast in advocating your positions and 'in the bag' for no one
This place is nutz lately
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)I don't always agree with him, but he's spot on here.
Were you perhaps looking in a mirror when you typed this, Pisces?
indepat
(20,899 posts)shredding et al have long since been excused away. To wit, let's live only in the present and impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. My God, is this nation not wholly fucked up or what?