General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (bigtree) on Mon Aug 4, 2014, 04:16 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Because I've read over it and there is nothing in that quote that suggests his remarks were pointed toward those who think we should charge Bush with felonies. This is such a right-wing bullshit thing to do - take the President's words and twist 'em to make a point that was never made. How very Issa of you.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . with anything.
Thing is, Drunken Irishman, the President wasn't just making small talk in his Friday night dump statement. There was more to that statement of his than relating the gravity of the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that his CIA director just admitted obstructing. The President was straining to excuse the actions, at least in some form or fashion. Why did he see the need to include the extraordinary observation that the government was reacting out of fear?
Why did he feel the need to castigate or lecture Americans about passing harsh judgments about actions taken by people he characterized as 'patriots?' Who was he referring to as patriots? Interrogators? Their superiors?
Who is he thinking of when he used the word 'sanctimonious?' Critics of whoever he believes "crossed a line?"
"Any fair-minded person would believe," the President said, that the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were 'torture.'
Where did the President indicate that he intended to do anything specific or concrete to "take responsibility for that so hopefully we don’t do it again in the future.”
Remember, we're not operating in some vacuum. This administration has already ceded their role in prosecuting ANYONE involved.
What do you believe he meant when he said "it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious (excessively or hypocritically pious) in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had . . .?"
Who do you believe has been excessively or hypocritically pious in looking back at the 'tough job' the Bush administration was faced with? Who, exactly do you believe the president was directing that comment to?
I can read your opinion without calling you names and insinuating that you're behaving like a republican.
President Obama:
“I understand why it happened,” Obama stated. “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 the 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, and it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had and a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.”
“But having said all that,” he added, “We did some things that were wrong. And that’s what that report reflects. And that’s the reason why after I took office one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that were the subject of this report. And my hope is that this report reminds us once again that the character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy but what we do when things are hard. And why we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and any fair-minded person would believe were torture—We crossed a line.”
“That needs to be understood and accepted. And we have to as a country take responsibility for that so hopefully we don’t do it again in the future.”
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)When did the President call those people who think Bush should be charged as sanctimonious?
There is nothing in the quote you bolded that indicates who Obama was talking about. What utter right-wing trash. This is beneath any liberal and something Issa would pull.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)He said "us" and that did not include the critics of torture?...because the critics are the "them"?
That only makes it worse IMO.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's an outright lie unless you provide a quote with that exact context.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)noun: semantics; noun: logical semantics; noun: lexical semantics
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
•the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
But even if he was speaking about the executive branch the implication when you make a moral statement like that is that if we do it so should you.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I see nothing from Obama's quote where he was calling those wanting Bush to be charged with a crime as sanctimonious - especially since he used 'we' and that would clump him right in with the group.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If that is the case he IS telling us that we are being sanctimonious by saying we should not be.
If we were not then there would be no need to tell us not to be.
Now if by that we he meant the administration then you might have a point but you will recognize that he intended us to not be like that.
No matter how you cut it the word stands and it was intended for "them", meaning those who are critical of torture...that includes me.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . I'm interpreting his inclusion of that remark alongside his excuses offered for the behavior as part and parcel of the defense of the participants.
Slick and calculated language by the President deserves, invites, interpretation. He didn't spell that out, did he? He just let it hang there for our edification and judgment.
That's how I interpret it, based on the President's refusal, so far, to prosecute anyone involved in what he calls torture. So did the author of this opinion piece.
Who do you believe the president was referring to when he lectured Americans to not be excessively or hypocritically pious in judging the folks he called 'patriots?'
( . . . btw Drunken Irishman, the snipes about republicanism are out of bounds in this forum. I'd think you could find another way to express your disdain for folks you disagree with.)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)anti-torture morons WILL be demanding prosecutions, now that, after over a decade, they can no longer DENY or use weasel words, such as 'enhanced interrogation', to describe the enormous crimes that were committed.
Now that there can be no more denials, let me ask you this, what SHOULD the President of Democracy do with the information that the Bush gang DID engage in the inhumane and illegal practice of TORTURE?
Should he 'advise' us 'not to be Sanctimonious' or, should he demand a thorough investigation and prosecutions of those who engaged in these crimes??
I guess we are being told 'not to be Sanctimonious' now that we know for sure.
Would it be, in your opinion, 'Sanctimonious' for us to demand justice, to demand that the rule of law be applied? Because that is what this President thinks it would be.
Well, he better get ready, there are an awful lot of 'sanctimonious' people in this country, thankfully and we will not be taking his advice. We will be vehemently 'sanctimonious' as we have always been.
I guess this new excuse for War Crimes, 'they were afraid, poor dears, just let's move forward' will be applied to our ENEMIES also?? 'Cause it would be awfully hypocritical of us to ever again accuse ANYONE else of committing crimes like this, wouldn't it? It would be extremely 'sanctimonious'!
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #23)
NanceGreggs This message was self-deleted by its author.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)criminal behavior, anti-social behavior.
The question is partly whether our leaders are or are not above the law. Think of the man in Cleveland who kidnapped the women and kept them locked up in his house. Was he a torturer among other things? He was recently sentenced to a prison term. Should those who torture under the orders of leaders who condone criminal acts be subject ot the same kinds of legal penalties that the man in Cleveland is subject to?
Or are government employees who believe in good faith that they are torturing to protect Americans subject to a different, more lenient law. I don't think they can claim to have done it in self-defense or defense of others, but then special laws apply in war. Is torture OK in war against prisoners of war. I don't think so, but if the Obama administration thinks it is then that may be why Obama is so reluctant to discuss criminal penalties. I think that torture is illegal under international law and violates the principles our military has followed since Washington and the American Revolution. So I think that those who engaged in torture should be charged with crimes on that ground.
The second issue is deterrence. If we want to stand up for the principles that George Washington stood for and enforced in the Revolutionary War and that we have tried to stand for and enforce with our military since that time, then we should try to deter future CIA or military officers from torturing prisoners. So on this ground also, criminal penalties for the torture are appropriate.
Are as a nation we what we claim to be or not?
We like to see ourselves on the moral high ground. It's time to demonstrate that we are in my view. And that means charging those who tortured and those who approved of the torture with crimes.
But that is politically a very difficult thing to do.
Other nations likd the Palestinians and Israel may choose to do what serves their interests without thought of morality, but should we do that?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)familiarized with International Law before they go to war airc. What is the point of TEACHING that torture is wrong, if you act in opposition to what you are teaching, AND claiming to be as a nation.
I don't see how this President could believe that torture is in any way protecting this country since MOST Intel Agents have, over and over again, stated that it does not help them at all.
And even if we believe that it is helpful in protecting this country, then why do we condemn others who use torture, like Saddam eg. We were told we were going to Iraq to 'shut down Saddam's torture chambers'. Why, wouldn't he and others have the same right to protect themselves as we do?
You can see how not prosecuting War Criminals has lost us the power to set an example every time we wave a finger at any other country on Human Rights issues.
Nearly every time we make our State Department list of countries we claim are 'violating human rights' we get a strong response listing OUR OWN. China eg, has done it at least twice that I am aware of.
And see the I/P situation, when we try to admonish Netanyahu on his brutal assault on the Palestinians, we are reminded of our own War Crimes and told to go mind our own business.
So for that reason alone, if nothing else, it was essential that we demonstrate we abide by our own lecturing of others, otherwise they simply thumb their noses at us and continue to violate the rights of other human beings. We have lost power, and that is as important to our National Security as anything else, imo.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)our rights.
I believe that President Obama said something about the fact that the Palestinians, especially Hamas, should abide by international law and that Israel has the right to defend its borders.
We do to, but we should not have broken international law to defend ourselves. We have to set an example. We have a strong enough military to do that. We have nothing to fear but fear itself as Roosevelt says.
The torture was wrong, and for many reasons, those who broke international law should be punished. It would be great if an international tribunal would call them to task -- those individuals who broke the law according to the official report. They did not "keep Amerian safe." They made the world less safe for human rights.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)There is no exception for government employees "acting in good faith" in those statutes.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that they will hook their star to Obama without consideration for what he has done or is doing. It's really a self preservation move. As you well know, trying to figure out who is really telling the truth is very hard work. Some here take the easy road. Notice that they have no arguments but are here only to distract.
My belief is that the president has no real choice. He is out ranked by the CIA/NSA/Carlyle Group. What we saw in this last press conference was the first wave of rationalizations to absolve the war criminals.
cstanleytech
(28,471 posts)have to answer for what they do.
Look at what happened to the Japanese Americans during WWII and how there was a complete lack of prosecutions on those who imprisoned them illegally or how Nixon was able to skip out on being charged not to mention Reagan and Bush Sr.
And thats not even counting leaders of other countries who commit crimes like Putin, he wont ever face trial probably for whats he done.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)unprecedented, it has happened throughout history to other nations.
Eg, several countries in Latin America never thought they would see THEIR war criminals face justice for the crimes they committed, the murders, the torture etc, many of THOSE war criminals backed by the US. But half a decade later, these war criminals in several countries, HAVE been held accountable.
They would have made sure Pinochet also faced the justice he deserved, late though it was, but our Western Colonial 'allies' protected him and refused to return him for trial and to serve his sentence. Those exact same allies however, were more than willing to turn over a Whistle Blower who has never been charged with a crime, because the secrets he revealed were very inconvenient for THEM.
The point is, time has a way of changing things. I hope to live to see the day our War Criminals are finally held accountable, even if they are old men and women by then. Pinochet went to his grave, NOT the 'glorious' leader of a nation, but a War Criminal, and that is how history will record his life, a traitor, a war criminal, a mass murderer. And he was OUR 'friend'. You can tell a lot about a person, or COUNTRY, by the company they keep.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Your interpretation is not only laughable - but the fact you're going to great lengths to find some meaning into his words is down right obsessive. Unless you provide a quote where he said what you, and that article, is accusing him of saying, I'm just going to believe you're pulling shit out of your ass and blatantly lying about the President.
It's completely shameful that so many DUers employ the same bullshit tactics the right uses to slander Obama. "This is what he meant..."
Just as those fucking cowards who attacked him for using folks - like Liz Cheney just recently.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you to lash out calling the OP author names. If you disagree, provide your argument.
You seem to be all tied up with a word instead of addressing the issue. What was the President trying to tell us? Sounded to me like "he understood" why torture was committed. Because we were all scared. When "we all" are scared, our government is supposed to reassure us that they have it under control and not take advantage of our fear and start using terrorist techniques clearly designed to cause terror.
I believe I understand and I don't at all approve or forgive. We must honestly address this issue and not deny it's significance. We tortured some folks. You f'n bet we did. Some can rationalize that it was necessary to gain intelligence. That's bullshit and also we went way farther than that. We picked up people off the street and tortured them just to see if they knew anything. We tortured innocent people including children. We brutally tortured some "folks" to death. Pres Obama isn't responsible for the torture, but I hope he doesn't continue to try to justify it.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's a lie to say he said it. Liars should be called out for lying. Provide a quote where the President said anything about those wanting to press charges as being sanctimonious. If you can't provide a direct quote, and don't throw out this bullshit interpretation (god I hate when people try to interpret a meaning that doesn't exist), don't get butt hurt when I call you a liar.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . who or what do YOU think he was referring to when he said "it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had?"
If you can't answer that question, you don't deserve to be listened to as you rip into those of us who offered our own explanation.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)If you can't provide a quote, you don't deserve to be taken seriously on any matter and should be called out for your lying.
And no, the quote you provided does not come close to the lie you're pushing.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . interesting that you'd rail against others here for interpreting his words and not bother to offer your own view.
. . . who or what do YOU think he was referring to when he said "it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had?"
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I think it's clear what he said. There is no need to interpret because doing so puts YOUR OWN twist on what he said - not his.
It's remarkable you've been able to turn this into an admonishment of the left but ignore the 'us' part - which clearly shows Obama was talking about himself, as well.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . .you seem more concerned with what I've said than what the President said.
All this talk about my 'twist' on his words - I get it. Just answer the question . . .
. . . who or what do YOU think he was referring to when he said "it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had?"
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . who or what do YOU think he was referring to when he said "it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had?"
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . I'll keep that in mind.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... those he identified in the complete sentence - which, for some reason, you chose not to add.
"... and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this, and it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had."
It seems pretty obvious who he was referring to.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I would love to hear your interpretation. But I'm guessing you are going to stick by the tactic of calling those that disagree with you liars.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I believe the President meant the entire nation and not just a subset of individuals who want Bush and Cheney thrown to the dogs. Moreover, the overall arc of his comment wasn't solely about Bush and Cheney and others involved, probably low-level CIAers who were under immense pressure at the time. The sanctimonious part comes into play because, in the context of his words, we barely asked questions. Congress certainly didn't. You had the passing of the PATRIOT Act, which only Russ Feingold opposed (every other senator supported it - including the liberal hero Ted Kennedy), the ill-conceived invasion of Afghanistan that was hardly debated (and supported by nearly every politician) - the U.S. fucked up a lot more than just torturing people during those days.
The thing is, the backlash toward this comment is overplayed. Did Obama change anything Friday? No. We knew he wasn't going to go after Bush and Cheney - and he's not. We know that there is not many credible politicians today, including the woman in your avatar, who's advocating for Bush and Cheney be tried. But because it's Obama, he's being tossed to the dogs so to speak. YES, I get he's president ... but why nothing from the Senate or the House? Is Elizabeth Warren going to say what DU so wants to hear? What about Bernie Sanders? Probably not. But the President should - and then go full on even though, I'm sure, if you polled the country right now it would be about as popular as impeaching him.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)He is obviously trying to rationalize away f'n war crimes. The next thing you know he will be kissing Cheney on the cheek. You throw out a lot of chaff, "What about the Senate, what about the House, what about Sen Warren, " I am not happy about that either but it's distraction. The President of the USofA is rationalizing away war crimes. "But because it's Obama, he's being tossed to the dogs so to speak." When you pull that card, "Poor Obama" you've lost the discussion. How can you idolize someone so, and yet cry "poor Obama" as if he can't handle it. I don't want a Democratic president to absolve our war crimes.
You either have principles or you don't. Torture is horrible and torture apologizing is wrong and certainly not a Democratic principle.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)What part of that don't you understand?
So why do *you* hate America?
Rex
(65,616 posts)He should be kicking in doors and demanding resignations imo. The top needs to be held accountable.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)each and every person that participated be tried. Just following orders doesn't cut it. How can a normal human torture people? I say they can't.
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)In a situation of immediate danger, where tactical information could save the lives of you and your team, it would not be remarkable that a prisoner might be subject to some severe torture to extract that information. Just as it would be not unusual that a tactical situation might dictate killing prisoners.
The key word, though, is "tactical." Or, you might substitute "in the heat." That is what makes the US use of torture remarkable. It was done in cold blood, without any tactical necessity. Though the apologists liked to claim that "vital information" was extracted by these methods, they are unwilling to show proof, and thus must be held suspect. This is not to say, by the way, that the ends would justify the means if they could be demonstrated. But the "we were afraid" apologetic works better when people are actually shooting at you, rather than when applied to systematic, cold-blooded abuse in the safety of one's own prison.
-- Mal
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)against reward for rationalizing any torture, even the "tactical" need. Once you open the torture box it's hard to control.
One of the uses of torture is terror. I believe the nitwits that were running our country were using torture as a tool to terrorize their enemy. I also believe that there was a certain amount of psychopathy involved.
indepat
(20,899 posts)
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)
From going to the moon in a decade because it was hard
to torturing and drone bombing clusters of civilians because it is easy
Way to go 'Murika.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). . . being all sanctimonious & stuff!
George II
(67,782 posts)....for 13 years, and it's being portrayed sarcastically, nastily, and dismissively.
He said that what was done was WRONG, and putting it in the context of September 2001. People forget that bush had an approval rating over 80% back then, MOST of America was "aghast" (to use the OP's term) at what happened that month.
But now, 13 years later all the high and might "we could have done better" people are criticizing Obama for addressing something that NO ONE in the high level of government has addressed as bluntly as Obama did on Friday.
And then to couch it as a "Friday presser" is pure bullshit. If he said it at 2AM on Saturday morning it would have been covered by all the White House press corps - he's the freaking PRESIDENT of the United States! He sneezes and it's on the front page.
But then again, he's Barack Obama, so he's fair game for everyone - both republican and Democrat, right and left.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I think in the context it was the entire country and how we were all swept up in this idea that we needed to do whatever it took to protect ourselves - whether it was torture or going into Afghanistan or passing the Patriot Act.
Hell, only ONE SENATOR voted against the Patriot Act - Russ Feingold. Every other senator, including the liberal hero Ted Kennedy, voted in favor of it. We made mistakes in the process and that's what he was saying. But no, we can't be too sanctimonious because, at the time, a great deal of this country was under the control of a terrorist cloud.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Yes, Americans were terrified after 9/11, but that does not mean we all lost our moral bearings. There were many who spoke out against torture at the time - it's not as if no one knew it was wrong. And the Patriot Act, as bad as it is, is not remotely on the same level as the atrocities committed in the CIA's dungeons - not even close.
It seems to me that you are trying to minimize the sins of specific government officials by making it out as if we were all equally consumed by the same irresistible collective madness. That's utterly false.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)However, a great deal did. I bet even a plurality of America supports torture.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....our President.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You seem to think that being non-exclusively white and an American invites the kind of critisim on this thread. It does not.
It reflects hypocrisy in what is right and wrong. This constitutional scholar who is a millions times the president George W Bush was has made an excuse for what are war crimes. We are reminded that we shouldn't be sanctimonious for thinking slightly in that direction, as if the people in the United States could not know the difference.
What you don't like is hearing is how this says more about many of us being Americans. Too bad that this dismays. It should instead give you pause and thought.
"We" don't torture… remember?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
DC is a racket
postulater
(5,075 posts)NOT holding anyone accountable in Gaza or in Ukraine.
After all if he took a hard line on Bush, he would certainly be obligated to use the same logic on Gaza.
This way, because people were - really, really upset - we need to be understanding and allow them to get away with it.
rock
(13,218 posts)What's that? Oh yeah, It's rhetorical: he wouldn't.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Drone strike murders could one day land him in hot water if the unitary executive is made to face the music.
Force feeding Gitmo inmates could too.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)as I recall from Methodist Sunday school.
The drone strikes are a problem, and the President knows it.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Things that make you go hmm for $100, Alex!
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . he's called the practices torture twice in the past.
It should be understood that some 'folks' might have a more extensive concern about the president's response to the torture report than just defending their own hide.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Warren is a great Senator and would make a kick-ass President.
I bet she has already publicly called for the arrest of Dick Cheney.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)was necessary because we were scared?
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)But that doesn't mean I'm going to be angry at President Obama for not arresting them.
No president will ever have the previous president arrested. No matter the circumstances or the party in charge.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)he can do to get you angry. I respect that he is doing a good job fighting the forces of Repub Evil, but I won't give him Carte Blanche to do or say anything he wishes. IMO the war criminals should be prosecuted and I don't by the "It's too hard" rationalization. I also won't buy the argument that what they did was in any f'n way patriot nor because "we were all scared". I am angry that, as it seems to me, the president is soft selling the war crimes. "No president will ever have the previous president arrested." is not a law of the universe and not a rationalization for citizens to be denigrated for calling for justice.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)
lastlib
(28,262 posts)For believing that we should a) stand up for, and respect, basic human rights and human dignity; and b) that we should uphold the law, particularly treaties negotiated and signed by past Presidents and ratified by past Senates that require us to stand up for, and respect, basic human rights and human dignity.
Yeah, I'm sanctimonious!! Me! Count me! I'm more sanctimonious than *they* are!! 
pangaia
(24,324 posts)PS. I like your tag line,
You bet your old? ass it's not.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Nothing to see here; move along!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)And understandable mistake by people who were under terrible terrible terrible stress. Who, you know, didn't really mean it. And anyway, hasn't every nation tortured at some point in their history?
Anyway, criticising torturers makes them feel bad, so now we're ALL in the wrong.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Don't make the torturers feel bad! 
sibelian
(7,804 posts)It's so insensitive of us to mention it. What about THEM? Nobody thinks of the TORTURERS.
on point
(2,506 posts)There is never justification or understanding for torture.
The Gestapo didn't feel the need to use it until they wanted information too.
I am just sick we have sunk so low and Obama should be massively ashamed if charges do not follow right away
Cheney already admitted he is guilty!!!!!!!!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I would much rather be called that than enable torture.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Pressure the Senate to sign on to the Court. Politicians will not deal with such injustices. It needs to fall to international prosecutors who are not bound by political concerns.
We cannot be part of the chosen few that are immune to war crimes. There are a few so far and they all stink of death and corruption.
Putin and Dubya can share a cell together for life.. I'd give Cheney the chair. The man nearly destroyed the USA.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)Never mind spying and stealing information from the Senate Committee.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)apologies for insurance companies, apologies for mortgage fraud, apologies for Monsanto, apologies for Israel, apologies for job killing trade agreements, apologies for off-shoring and H1B programs, apologies for Bush, apologies for Rice, apologies for Cheney, apologies for patriot act, apologies for militarizing local police, apologies for spying on the press,
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)one has to admire how the elites bamboozled their way into the hearts and minds of the populace. They've got us hating ourselves more than the torturers and thieves that have looted our treasury and stripped the constitution. They worked hard at it.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...and thanks for the well-spoken post.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The whole damned country better get sanctimonious soon, or we will have permanently lost this nation to the fascists.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)The whole damned country better get sanctimonious soon, or we will have permanently lost this nation to the fascists.
What Woo Said!
sendero
(28,552 posts).... it truly only took one serious terror strike on exceptional America to basically destroy it. As a country, we've gone so far off the track, with most people not even noticing much less interested in doing anything about it, that I doubt there is any possibility of recovering.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)gazillion… and a welcome post you have there, whereisjustice…. 
tularetom
(23,664 posts)We did. But you can't hold a whole administration responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole two party system? And if the whole two party system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our political institutions in general? I put it to you, sanctimonious people - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
ReRe
(12,189 posts)USA! USA! USA!
The apologists stuff hypocrisy down our throats every chance they get, just like the religious fundamentalists!
Justice. They just don't get it. 
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Very apt!
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Let's not bicker and argue about who tortured who.
Iraq had huge ... tracks of land.
Uncle Joe
(65,134 posts)Thanks for the thread, bigtree.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)or mass slaughter in Gaza.
For example,
"Now I know some folks in Iraq weren't happy..." BOTTOMS UP!
"Now I know some folks in Gaza aren't happy..." BOTTOMS UP!
"Now I know some folks weren't happy about losing their jobs and life savings..." BOTTOMS UP!
"Now these folks who tortured are just some down-home good ol boy patriots, regular folks just doin their jobs, tryin to get paid..."
Crap! The #$% whiskey just ran out.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Well, it beats racist. Especially after I voted for Obama twice.
Alkene
(752 posts)about the crimes committed by "real patriots"? Does that apply to all sociopathic criminality conducted by patriots, or just state-sponsored misconduct?
And at what point does the desire for justice become "sanctimonious"?
I need a constitutional scholar to clarify these murky matters for me:
"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.
"It's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job those folks had. And 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, and that's what that report reflects.
And that’s the reason why, after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report."
-PBO
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Similarly, I've heard people say they opposed the death penalty in principle, but admitted that they weren't sure how they'd feel if a loved one were killed.
That's the sort of appalling rationale that PBO is using.
It shows a profound misunderstanding of how such laws work.
Thank Dog he's not a constitutional lawyer by training. Oh, wait. Never mind...
The Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture don't depend upon whether you woke up on the wrong side of the bed or not.
They're absolute.
Torture is a war crime. Always.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Hmmm, apparently it is still... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)We've been in situations way more threatening than our current one.
The points of the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions are not, "Follow these, except in situations when you're, like, rully, rully scared."
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Mistakes were made, it's in the past, in the words of that song that's really popular, "Let it go."
Response to bigtree (Original post)
Post removed
ReRe
(12,189 posts)That's right. He's apologizing for the criminals, so they won't come after him when he's gone from office in two and a half years. Thing is... it won't work. They'll come after him anyway! Isn't that the way it's been for six and a half years now?
What's wrong with someone who refuses to learn? Because they're compromised!
Can't put my hand on my foreign language dictionary. What does amatorem veritatis mean?
American exceptionalism?
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)And invites the inevitable "jury put you in your place" for speaking truth to power.
Good on you.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)like i have been saying all along. how can he prosecute others when he is doing similar?
Wonder what happened to the adage "We are a nation of laws.?" What happens if one kills another? He/she is held accountable. What happens to any of us down here in the 99% who breaks the law? Any law. We're held accountable.
I contend that we are a nation of two distinct sets of law: One set for the 1% and those who prop them up (the CIA, NSA, SC, etc.) and one set for all the rest of us. Constitution be damned!
Frankly, isn't it a bit "sanctimonious" for the President to call his progressive base sanctimonious?
Thanks for the OP, bigtree.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)...are being persecuted, tortured, locked up and forgotten....
Hulk
(6,699 posts)You seriously think one man...President or not...could put their foot on the throat of darth cheney and his accomplices? I seriously doubt it. I think President Obama may be powerless to do anything about these thugs, if he wanted to or not. Just my gut feeling.
We like to think any of us could shake this government up, if we had the opportunity. I don't think that's possible, and I think we might be naive if we want to believe that. Just like closing Guantanamo was out of his control. The drone issue may well be out of his control too, although maybe not. That's a tough call.
I'm just saying, I don't think the CIA and our other agencies are going to let one person sleep in the White House and chase out the ghosts that have preceded them. Not gonna happen.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)meanwhile, approving patriot act, NSA spying programs, heads of DoD/CIA and justice dept while responsible for military priorities. The Democratic Party is not a front organization for a larger Republican led shadow government that the US President has no control over.
People believe Jack Bauer is a real person and torture polls well among independent voters perceived to swing an election. Mr. Obama has decided to go with that.
.... but he could SAY why is isn't doing anything, and he isn't going to. So he is culpable.
Has someone glued his queen to the board?
BuckeyeBrad
(15 posts)Many of our fellow American citizens approve of torture, and going after U.S. torturers would probably mean taking down quite a few political allies and possibly open himself up to charges depending on what has come across his desk these last 6 years. I don't think Cheney specifically has much to do with it.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)One question I have is what would happen with the lawsuit if Obama had taken on prosecution of the previous administration as a cause? One thing is for sure, the lawsuit against Pres. Obama would not seem as ridiculous among the few republicans who oppose it.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . about the actual practices.
from TruthOut.org / By Roy Eidelson
How Americans Came to Support Torture, in Five Steps
____ In sum, this seemingly successful campaign of mass persuasion depended upon convincing the public to believe five things: (1) our country is in great danger, (2) torture is the only thing that can keep us safe, (3) the people we torture are monstrous wrongdoers, (4) our decision to torture is moral and for the greater good, and (5) critics of our torture policy should not be trusted. And all the while, the marketers painstakingly avoided using the actual word "torture"-and contested the word's use by anyone else. Of course, this strategy is by no means unique to the selling of torture. A similar approach, designed for hawking war, was used with devastating and tragic effect in building public support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Admittedly, we cannot be sure that torture would be less popular with Americans today if the Bush administration had not worked so hard to promote it. But there is good reason to think this might be the case. After all, the combination of an outsized public relations budget, an overly accommodating mainstream media, and an unwary audience of millions is every marketer's dream. In similar fashion, we cannot really know whether there would now be even greater public support for torture if not for the efforts of those who have steadfastly spoken out against our country's interrogation abuses. Looking ahead, as still more information emerges through declassification of documents, high-level investigations, or congressional hearings, we should expect to hear this five-part sales pitch over and over again from Bush-era torture advocates. But hopefully this next time around, far fewer of us will still be buying.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cheney would be pissed if Obama said he was ok with what Cheney did.
If you liked what the President said, tell us why. To me it looked like an attempt to rationalize the war crimes of Cheney.
I am betting that if Obama said that the Cheney torture was cool, a "group" here in DU would scream "Cool".
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I don't care what your expectations of me are.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)trying to stand with Pres Obama's rationalizations of how a little torture of folks here and there was justified because "we" were scared.
But you are correct. I should not have had such high expectations. There is no excuse for torture.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)got you riled, didn't it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"Neither the President, or I think torture is justified." But the president said he understood. We were all afraid. So what's his point? He didn't say that it was despicable, and not what this country is all about.
Do you think we should just forget about the war crimes?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)understand why some might have felt that it was justified, but like the President, I think they are wrong. As he said, this is contrary to our values. You know rhett, it's entirely possible to understand why someone did something wrong...and still think they are wrong. It's complex moral thought.
First, you seemed upset that he used "folks." Then, you are upset that he didn't use the word "despicable."
"Despicable?" Interesting that you are focused on that word, given Liz Cheney's remark today.
Response to msanthrope (Reply #145)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)when they partner, but gay people were lacking 'a spiritual element, God is in the mix' is now preaching that others are 'sanctimonious'? He actually declared himself 'Sanctified' in public, comparing himself to others, who were not 'sanctified' and not really human, lacking as we do the profound spiritual element of Newt Gingrich's marriage. About as sanctimonious as it gets.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Its hard not to get discouraged when Obama says this shit.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . but, in the next moment, it's motivating.
How sanguine and satisfied some of the responses from Democrats seemed Friday in response to his mouthing of the word 'torture.' Then comes the realization that he's already used that term and that he's already placed his presidency in the way of prosecutions - and that, notwithstanding his executive directive banning torture, the order can be easily undone by a hostile future president.
We're now faced with the same awe-struck response from many Democrats when this historic report is finally revealed - and we will come to the same realization that we're only seeing what the WH and politicians will allow in that executive summary, and that merely pointing to crimes and abuses is no substitute for actual action to hold felons accountable; prosecutions which would make these practices and policies as dangerous for the practitioners as they are for the victims of the abuses.
I think much of the 'discouragement' comes from regarding this Democratic president as the last word on our progressive goals. He never was; never will be. Overcoming the shortfalls of this Democratic presidency has always been, and will always be the challenge of our progressive politics.
It can be discouraging, I know. Politics is designed to accommodate cynicism beyond the point where our elected officials intend to go. Yet, we are the progressive politics, much more than the individuals we choose to elevate and advance those ideals in our democratic system.
The status quo relies on that discouragement. Our progressive politics demands that we never allow ourselves to believe that we can't achieve better.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2014, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)
He was already a war criminal in regards to Drones.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Kinda like those patriots at My Lai.
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)I was afraid we were going to take exactly the route we have taken since then.
-- Mal
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . for his personal aggrandizement; on top of that pile of rubble and humanity and later in his addresses to the nation.
It was definitely fear my wife and I were experiencing in the aftermath of the attacks; fear, like you say, of what the republican administration's response would be. Those were fully borne out, and then some.
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)I remember watching him speechify to the Atlanta firemen after he had found his spine and came out of hiding. He was so obviously "sucking it all in," all I could think of was old video of Hitler and the way he drank in the adulation during his speeches. Godwin's Law be damned, it was what I was thinking then.
-- Mal
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)applies to Rummy and others. Since there is no statute of limitations on war crimes lets hope that some future president will either decide to prosecute them here or turn them over to the Hague. But don't expect Hillary Clinton to do it. I think we need to look past her.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Well Cheney and Bush aren't covering up the fact that they tortured, rather they seem proud of it or at least Cheney is, so that must be why they are off the hook.
certainot
(9,090 posts)as the left allows them and their criminal political party to pump whatever they want all day every day out of 1000 think tank coordinated radio stations.
we can't even get single payer or global warming reality.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)It's not like there is an organized Left in the halls of power, to begin with; and the 99% Left are banging on doors and screaming and NOT BEING HEARD, if not being beaten, arrested and put in solitary...
It's not any fault of the Left. It's the fault of the Corporations and their Enablers.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)Human Rights are just too inconvenient for moneyed interests.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)those that tortured people walk free and get drooled over by Barbara Walters on TV.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)I know the political reasons that Obama has not, and likely will not, prosecute the Bushmen for torturing the prisoners at Gitmo. However, he should prosecute, just to show respect for the rule of law. It is difficult to say that this is a nation of laws, not of men, if the men running the government can commit felonies and get away with it.
dickthegrouch
(4,516 posts)For Death-sentence approving ex-governor Bush to be too afraid of going to The Netherlands to answer to his crimes as charged by the Court of Human Rights in the Hague.
The good news is that now that Obama has let the cat out of the bag, it's not the US's problem any longer (unless we want our justice system to look completely corrupt and spineless), but rather it is up to the Prosecutors in The Hague to level charges based on the accusations that Obama is too sensible to make unless he can back them up.
I would love to see Bushco being perp walked to a Federal prisoner transport plane for their trip to The Hague.
mike_c
(37,051 posts)eom
Fiendish Thingy
(23,230 posts)As a member of the Sanctimonious Left who believes that torturers, or those who order or enable torture, should be held accountable for their "understandable mistakes".
derby378
(30,262 posts)Put me down as one of those sanctimonious assholes who believe charges should be brought. Yeah.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Would that put Americans in a position of being asked to admit we could no longer be morally superior to others?
I guess "we" would have to admit that we are just as unlawful as the rest of the world, cause we can now say it. I guess the president's Get Out of Jail" card has been laid. We can forgive ourselves because we are no different than every government who became major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal.
I am no more comforted by this than I was when Nancy Pelosi said, "impeachment is off the table".
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Including the August 6th one.
And, war crimes were done…. Now, don't get all uppity and sanctimonious on those who were under pressure after all those warnings were ignored.
Don't let Bush and Cheney get you down, FOLKS…. 
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)But not so much with actual human beings.
I'm not sure what that says about the current American population but it's not good.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)What Obama said: [1]"There was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."
That is a far cry from "President Obama thinks you’re sanctimonious for insisting torturers be charged with felonies."
He said nothing about the idea of torturers being charged with felonies; he said nothing about those who think they should be being "sanctimonious".
He was speaking specifically about "law enforcement and nat'l security teams" and the job they had to do in the wake of 9/11. He said nothing about torturers being patriots", as some here would have it.
"And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."
Again, not even close to calling torturers "patriots" - unless one takes the position that every single person who had a job to do after the September 11th attacks is, by some kind of default, a "torturer".
Now to erecting that strawman:
Step 1: Take a single word ("santimonoius"
out of context, and insist that Obama was applying it to people who believe torturers should be prosecuted, when it is perfectly clear from his remarks that he wasn't.
Step 2: Simply ignore everything else that was said, especially "it is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect". You can't get the hair-on-fire crowd all jazzed up by acknowledging the "us" in that comment - because it completely obliterates the notion that he was talking about specific people who think torturers should be prosecuted (a topic, BTW, which was never even addressed in his remarks), and was actually talking about all of US as a nation.
Step 3: Post a completely misleading, incredibly ignorant, and woefully ill-informed post about what the President never said as opposed to what he actually said. Get one very large spoon and stir the shit.
Step 4: Give fellow posters a "rallying cry" - "Obama is calling US sanctimonious!!!" Again, ignore the fact that he DIDN'T, not by a long shot. Remember that The Strawman is built on fabrications, and The Strawman is far more important than trivial things like actual facts.
Step 5: When what was actually said is not outrageous, become OUTRAGED!!! by what wasn't said. Pretend to know what Obama was "really saying" when what he actually said does not produce the necessary outrage. The Strawman survives on outrage - whether it is warranted or not is superfluous to the conversation.
Step 6: Get fellow posters to pick up the "rallying cry" and run with it. The "I am sanctimonious" thingy is cutely reminiscent of "I am Spartacus" - just the kind of thing that people who are not interested in facts can glom onto as a substitute for factual information.
Step 7: Rinse, lather, repeat. Post about your outrage at what Obama DIDN'T say until the next thing he DIDN'T say is posted. Then be suitably outraged about THAT.
What is depressing is that many here are not only uninterested in facts; they deem them to be inconsequential. It is far more important to be OUTRAGED!!! than it is to delve into the facts behind what you are being OUTRAGED!!! about. The Strawman must be supported - because without him, so many here would have nothing else to discuss.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Now I know that many people in our national security agencies were "working under enormous pressure and were real patriots," and that I shouldn't "feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job those folks had." I generally do tend to be sanctimonious when someone has a tough job. I do wonder why the President made these important points in a speech about a report on torture. Oh well, I am sure he wasn't trying to offer mitigating excuses for torture or suggesting that it would be sanctimonious to strongly condemn those who committed torture. President Obama would never do that.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... on what Obama didn't say.
"I am sure he wasn't trying to offer mitigating excuses for torture or suggesting that it would be sanctimonious to strongly condemn those who committed torture."
If you can find a quote where he said - or even implied - that "it would be sanctimonious to strongly condemn those who committed torture", please provide the link to that quote.
The FACT is that he never addressed the "condemnation" nor the prosecution of torturers at all. But you are apparently not interested in facts - or what was actually said. You'd much rather shove straw up that Strawman's ass in a pitiful attempt to keep him standing.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . not so much all of the conjecture about the motives of expressing a different pov here at DU.
I'm hesitating on whether to take the bait and start defending what my perspective is and why I've expressed it in several posts. You can read for yourself and judge for yourself, so repeating all of it for the benefit of rebutting your extremely personal observations seems as diverting as it is distracting. I really don't have a burning need to seek understanding of my motives from you, or anyone else here, for that matter.
Let me take a crack at your characterization of what the President said, and I'll leave the DU meta-politics out of it.
__________________________________
What Obama said: "There was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."
This statement followed right after what I interpreted as a deliberate effort to rationalize the actions of the participants in the tortures.
President Obama:
“I understand why it happened,” Obama stated. “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 the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent.”
I'm assuming, because we haven't had an opportunity to ask the President who he was actually including in that rationalization, that he was referring to the participants - the interrogators and their superiors.
Now we know that the actual practitioners were defended by the Bush administration with the claim that they weren't acting as rogue agents - rather, they were operating under the authority of the Yoo memos which gave them authorization.
Nonetheless, these aren't the only choices I see who would fit the description. Perhaps he was talking about the public reaction; no matter how inaccurate and meaningless I think that would be to the ultimate decision to torture.
Why would the president engage in rhetoric about first responders in a statement responding to a report about torture? Is it really such a stretch to assume that he actually was referring to "law enforcement and nat'l security teams" who were involved in that interrogation effort? Is there nothing in that statement that refers to the interrogators or their superiors?
Where was there a need to explain their actions in regard to the torture report? Do you really believe he was just waxing nostalgic about first responders, or can you concede that he was referring to "law enforcement and nat'l security teams" as the principals that were the subjects of the Senate investigation? Can you even concede a legitimate difference of opinion?
Why would he expect anyone to "feel too sanctimonious" about first responders?
In effect, I don't believe there is really a reasonable excuse for "folks (who) were working hard under enormous pressure" in the reactions he perceives occurred from the American people to the attacks.
I don't believe that it's 'sanctimonious' to expect that those folks would act within the boundaries of our constitution and our collective national conscience. I don't believe the people the President identified in his statement acted as 'patriots' in the choice they made to adopt such a barbaric tactic as torture to effect their goals.
I really don't know what their personal motivations were, but I refuse to believe it was in the nation's best interest or that it represented a reasonable response to the public's expectations at the time. The President appears to disagree.
In fact, I view their actions as criminal and not worthy of defense; not deserving to be wrapped in the justification about our national concern or anxiety. The 'enormous pressure' on these officials and agents was obvious. What's unspoken by the President was the expectation that our government, our intelligence agencies, and our military would conduct themselves with respect for the law and with appropriate restraint which respected individual rights and the rights of other nations.
Not many of us who already knew what kind of man George Bush was; who already knew the background of his deputies and agents expected them to operate with restraint. To be precise, the 'fear' most of us felt was that this President would take advantage of the incidents and crisis to launch the nation into a full blown war with the world. I don't think I'm exaggerating this.
We could see Pres. Bush drawing on his contrived authority to elevate his personal power, and we could see his deputies and agents reaching for the same levers of power and authority that they subsequently abused outside of our constitution and in disregard for the restraints we had placed on the Executive in the command of those levers of military and intelligence action and practice.
No one in that administration was acting without full knowledge of our laws or the boundaries of their authority. Not the president; not his deputies, and not his agents. Nothing about their illegal actions can be excused away by pointing to the American public's anxiety or fears.
Moreover, most of the tortures were done in cold-blood, not in the heat of the moment after the attacks, where the President's admonitions about afraid Americans might, might, apply. These were calculated actions committed after our defenses were raised and our troops deployed. Nothing about the time in which they occurred made them as urgent as the President's suggestions that decisions were made in response to fear.
Now, the comment he made about feeling 'sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had' doesn't contain a ready explanation. You certainly don't offer one.
When most people who are critical of the actions of the Bush administration in their response after the attacks reflect on the evidence, it's hard to conclude that they didn't know well they were breaking the law. Defenses have been offered that explain that full authorization was given interrogators (this is disputed) so it's a natural reaction to expect that those individuals be held accountable.
However, the Obama administration went about half a block down that road and concluded they were unable to go any further. It's not out of the realm of understanding that critics of this administration's refusal to pursue any further charges feel that sentiment is reflected in the defenses he appeared to clumsily offer in that brief statement.
Moreover, given all of the controversy over his CIA director's admitted interference in the Senate investigation into the abuses - and the president's expression of 'full confidence' in the man responsible for that obstruction - it's hard to regard the President's statement as just small talk and reminiscences about those heady days of September. In fact, it's a ludicrous suggestion.
The President of the United States was practicing his preemptive defense against the committee investigation's findings which are expected to reveal even more abuses than we've been privy to so far. It's naive beyond belief to expect that this wasn't a soft-pedaled defense of the principles involved - a defense of his own reluctance in seeking prosecutions against the subjects outlined in the investigation report.
To imagine any less is to suggest that the President wasn't addressing the charges at all; an amazing view of his role in communicating his intentions and belief.
We, out here in the public, are not regarded as equals in our right to the full facts of what occurred. That is more than evident in that we will only be allowed an 'executive summary' of the Senate committee investigation findings - at that, even that summary was in the process of further editing by Brennan and the principles (three former CIA chiefs and others who were given access to the report to provide rebuttals) described in the documents.
It would be naive beyond belief to imagine that the president's statements weren't in direct defense of those people. To suggest that our judgment of them would be sanctimonious is enough of an insult. Understanding that critics have clearly expressed that we want these individuals in the "law enforcement and nat'l security teams" who were involved in the tortures prosecuted, calling that concern and interest 'too sanctimonious' is an insult that I think can fairly be attributed to that desire for prosecutions.
It's fine that you disagree, but to blow that disagreement up into a dishonest and self-serving distortion of the motives of those you disagree with is beyond reasonable debate. It's conjecture that only serves your own narrow and incredible interpretation of what the president actually said.
Talk about a 'strawman.'
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Step 8: Persist in ignoring the fact that you have completely taken the President's words and "reconstructed them" into something you can get REALLY pissed about - along with ignoring the fact that he didn't even remotely say what you want to get REALLY pissed about.
Step 9: When confronted with the truth about all of the foregoing, stand your ground by posting a completely irreverent response that never even touches upon the aforementioned, i.e. the taking of one's words out of context, and implying - nay, declaring - that a completely fabricated quote was actually said.
Step 10: When all else fails, attempt to bore your opponent to death with a lengthy diatribe that has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand.
You posted an OP about an "article" in which the author blatantly mis-characterized what Obama said.
You cannot post a direct quote from Obama that comes even close to what the author (and yourself) are claiming to have been said.
Under any other circumstances, I would declare your Strawman dead. But this is DU - where Strawmen have the ability to resurrect themselves when expedient, thanks to their devoted followers.
. . . so you choose to stick to the line that I'm some sort of game-player, instead of recognizing how hard I've argued over the years for the exact same issues, using the exact same reasoning.
You choose to describe our disagreement casting yourself as a inviolable defender of some principle you've contrived - and me as an insincere, dissembling villain.
It may well end up that I've mis-characterized what the President has said, but you didn't come close, in my view to what I believe he said. We're reading the same words.
That's just a disagreement with your view, Nance, which doesn't deserve all of the rest of the nonsense you've accused me of. Apparently it's not okay to 'bore' you with a lengthy explanation, but just fine for you to spend the bulk of your explanation of his statement casting all sorts of aspersions on me and my own character with your own lengthy diatribe. Cute.
Btw, this isn't my article, nor is it the only view out there which agrees with my characterization of the President's words. You'll need more than the brittle matches you've used here to light a fire to all of those 'strawmen' like the one you're thinking you see in my view.
I didn't have to respond to you, now I'm a little sorry I spent the time. It's not easy for me these days, but I though you were worth the effort. I'll move on and let you have your say without offering any more of my opinion of it. I don't need this shit.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)It is often derailed long before it enters the station.
It is frequently found to be more steam than engine, more noise than transportation from one point to another.
And it rarely gets its all-on-boarders more than a few miles before it breaks down.
But it IS always on time.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Broken Clocks that always send the train out on time...
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I suppose I've also just kicked and article I didn't read - oh well.
eom!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)