The Dumpster Fire of Obama's Moral Authority

[WilliamPitt]

President Obama briefs the press on the economy and foreign
policy issues at the White House, Friday, Aug. 1, 2014.
(Screengrab via Whitehouse.gov)

The Dumpster Fire of Obama's Moral Authority
By William Rivers Pitt
Truthout | Op-Ed

Thursday 07 August 2014

Whatever lingering moral authority remaining in the administration of President Barack Obama fell to dust last Friday in a news dump that no one, apparently, was expected to pay any attention to.

That's what Friday news dumps are for; you drop the smelliest stories in the late afternoon, when the citizenry is staring out the window at work and waiting for the weekend to begin. Very few people pay attention to the news on the weekends, and by Monday morning, the damning or damaging stories that were dropped on Friday have flowed far down the river to pollute the bay, out of sight and out of mind.

The news dump last Friday, however, was a doozy, and didn't sink from sight in the manner the Obama administration hoped it would. Over the intervening days, a great many people have taken a long, slow burn on remarks made by the president regarding America's use of torture during the so-called "War on Terror."

(snip)

One is immediately struck by the staggering glibness of using the line "We tortured some folks" to encapsulate a years-long comprehensive international program that tore a great many people to pieces, among them many innocents, to no appreciable gain. The program was used, in no small degree, to extract niblets of highly questionable "intelligence" the previous administration used to justify a war of aggression against Iraq that won them elections and made their friends rich. Along the way, public international knowledge of America's actions destroyed this nation's reputation utterly. They all got away with it.

(snip)

As bad as the "some folks" gambit was, this, this right here, is where the moral authority of this president and his administration became a dumpster fire. No one has any business blaming President Obama and his administration for the deplorable actions of his predecessor. However, the simple fact of the matter is that all of them swore a public oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. They are required to swear that oath not for the times when defending the Constitution is easy, but for the times when it is hard. Otherwise, the oath itself is pointless.

By citing the fear that came after the attacks of 9/11 - a moment when defending the Constitution and holding to that oath was very, very hard - as a free pass for those who instituted and practiced this program of torture, the president betrayed his oath, just as those who practiced torture betrayed theirs. No one was prosecuted for these crimes, and the "investigations" conducted by this administration into that torture were so piddly and toothless as to be utterly meaningless.

(snip)

"Not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect," he said. Note this well: that specific remark was not directed at the Republicans, the Tea Party or the "mainstream" news media, all of whom happily went along for the ride back when torture was the hip thing to do. Mr. Obama isn't going to get any static from them on the issue of torture; their hands are grimy with the blood they helped to spill.

No, that line was directed at people like me, and maybe you, and everyone who stood up and shouted from the rafters that torture is wrong, that torture is evil, and the people who did it need to be punished if the United States has even a whiff of a prayer of recovering its morality after so long and cruel and despicable a practice. The torturers are the "real patriots" here, you see, and those of us who stood against them - and will ever do so - are only being "sanctimonious" in our outrage.

(snip)

Why is the president bending over backwards for what is demonstrably a CIA that has gone dangerously rogue? It might have something to do with the fact that the current CIA Director, John Brennan, was up to his neck in the torture program while a member of the Bush administration, and is now the CIA director because Mr. Obama nominated him. Yes, it just might.

The whole thing reeks of a cover-up, but don't get too sanctimonious about it. They were "patriots," and we were "afraid," and besides, it was just "some folks" who were tortured.

What took place during the long, gruesome practice of torture is a stain on the soul of this nation. President Obama has done nothing to bring those responsible to justice, and has in fact tapped several of the architects, such as Mr. Brennan, for positions of incredible power. On Friday, Mr. Obama chose to soft-pedal the disgrace of torture, called the perpetrators "patriots," and told those of us upset about the whole thing not to be "sanctimonious" in our indignation.

The rest: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25430-the-dumpster-fire-of-obamas-moral-authority

[MohRokTah]

1. .

[Union Scribe]

3. Somehow I doubt you read that article in a minute. nt

[Marr]

12. He's paid by the hour.

Can't waste time reading.

[MohRokTah]

25. .

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

37. Look. another penny.

[MohRokTah]

52. .

[pa28]

108. ka-CHING!

[aikoaiko]

300. And the jury results are in...

On Fri Aug 8, 2014, 09:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

ka-CHING!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5350164

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Joining in with accusing a DUer of being a paid sockpuppet

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 8, 2014, 09:39 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: MohRokTah is no DUer and this is a lame alert.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post #52 shows Mo is laughing about it. No harm no foul.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[mythology]

272. Because accusing a DUer of being a paid shill makes you look good?

There was a time such a post would have been considered beneath DU. It's sad that it's no longer.

[Marr]

302. But kneejerk dismissals of critical articles, posted clearly without having read them...

Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2014, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

that's not "beneath DU"? Shrugging off the torture issue to defend some politician isn't "beneath DU"?

Get real.

[davidpdx]

361. How do you know the person didn't read it prior to coming here?

I often read the news on my own and then if I happen to stumble across a thread about the same article I may or may not comment. Some of it depends on how current the news is. Just a reminder, assumptions can be wrong.

[mindwalker_i]

19. No comment, no justification, just "I don't like this."

What it really says is, "I stand with the president in saying that torture is ok." But honestly, adding comments and reasoning would just reinforce it.

[Maraya1969]

32. A thumbs down means the president thinks torture is OK? Give me a break!

And the president not prosecuting those who were behind the torture does not mean he did or does not want to. Nor does it mean he thinks torture is, "OK".

Before any prosecutor decides whether to prosecute he has to take into a lot of factors into account. And whether he believes the perpetrators are guilty is just one.

[mindwalker_i]

44. "A thumbs down means the president thinks torture is OK?"

You're being deliberately obtuse. Will's article makes the case, convincingly, that Obama has said torture was okay because we were scared. The thumbs down says that that person agrees with the president. If one agrees with the president when the president says torture was ok, that person agrees that torture was ok.

Your comment about prosecutors "taking a lot of factors into account," and especially the part about, "And whether he believes the perpetrators are guilty is just one," says, essentially, that yeah, people are guilty of committing torture but there are "other factors" that prevent him from prosecuting it. So, yeah, the government tortured people, going against the Geneva convention against torture and against our constitution, but there are "other factors" that mean we aren't going to prosecute. What are those "other factors?" You leave that wide open for interpretation.

How about we apply this to other issues, like domestic spying? Yeah, the government might be guilty of spying on all of us, but there are "other factors" that mean they don't have to be prosecuted. Even though they continue doing it. Spying on us all has bad effects on a democracy - in essence, it gives the government way too much power over the people. That's kind of why we had this constitution in the first place.

by making the excuse that there were "other factors" which prevent prosecution of the most egregious lawlessness committed by the government, you are endorsing destruction of democracy by giving government unlimited power over citizens.

[Maraya1969]

351. Nuremberg was different. Everyone wan't the trial. With Bush, Cheney et al there would be plenty

of fighting from a whole lot of people. How about the people who are too afraid to testify? Or maybe they end up dead or threatened that their children will be dead if they go through with it.

Then you have that guy in the administration that wrote up something that basically gave them the right to torture. You have to prove that he did not have the capacity to do that first.

There are so many issues. It's similar to why Nixon wasn't prosecuted only this situation is way worse.

[mindwalker_i]

354. So your argument now is that it would be hard?

People will not like it - a.k.a. Republicans - so we should do what we always do and wimp out, not pursue it?

the convention against torture is very clear: it isn't ok, period. We have the senior administration officials, Cheney in particular, who admitted to doing it and, in fact, said it was a great thing. The case is pretty ironclad. As for the guy who justified it, go back to the convention against torture: it isn't ok, period.

In the bigger picture, America has lost its was with respect to justice. Businesses get away with some pretty serious stuff, there was recently a case posted here where a rich guy got a couple months in jail for molesting children because he "was a value to the community," and we have the Bush admin committing torture. That's big stuff. Not prosecuting it sends us further down the road of being a nation where the rich and powerful are not bound by laws. Saying that it would be hard, or that there are other factors, is, in essence, advocating for this system.

[Fred Sanders]

46. I agree. There are leaps of logic in the OP that are unacceptable.

[roguevalley]

118. of course it does. he hasn't prosecuted anyone for anything. Silence means agreement.

[cui bono]

149. He called the torturers "patriots" and those who want prosecution of said torturers "sanctimonious"

You yourself are now excusing it with your last two sentences.

Do you really think anyone in the DOJ doesn't know torture occurred? We've known it for years. Come on now. The defending Obama no matter what principles we have to throw out has gone way too far, even before the rationalizing of torture started. Now it has become nauseating.

You should take stock of what principles you have left.

[rhett o rick]

185. Well said. Some are apologizing for the President apologizing for torture. nm

[Maraya1969]

352. Oh please post the exact quote from Obama. I really want to see it.

[cui bono]

353. Then you'll be excited to see this video of him saying it himself:

Enjoy!

http://fusion.net/leadership/story/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s-12240

Another source in print:

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

[Maraya1969]

355. So where in any of that did are these words you just attributed to him, "He called the torturers "

He called the torturers "patriots" and those who want prosecution of said torturers "sanctimonious"

I mean seriously what the fuck?

[cui bono]

356. Oh, sorry. I don't know how, but somehow I thought you were talking about him likening himself

to a moderate Republican because I had posted that recently, but I followed it back just now and I see you responded to the post about the torture... I'll find it. It's been all over DU and the news for the past week.

Here you go, from Reuters:

"We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values," Obama told a White House news conference.

Obama's comment was a reaffirmation of his decision to ban the use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding shortly after he took office in January 2009.

The administration of President George W. Bush, Obama's predecessor, authorized the use of harsh questioning techniques of militant detainees in the wake of the 9/11 attacks after deciding they did not amount to torture. Obama told reporters the techniques were used because the United States was afraid more attacks were imminent.

"It's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had," he said. "A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/us-usa-cia-obama-idUSKBN0G14YY20140801

[Maraya1969]

358. He said, "A lot" not "The torturers" And the quote about torture said we did a lot of things right

"BUT" we tortured some folks. No where did he say those who tortured were patriots.

He refers to "A lot of those folks were working hard.....real patriots. Was he directly talking about Bush, Cheney and the other few demons that ordered it?

[cui bono]

359. Yes, that's exactly who he was talking about. That was the subject at hand. Torture.

Last edited Tue Aug 12, 2014, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

He was absolutely talking about those who tortured, who else could he have been talking about?

From the transcript you can see he's talking about the torturers:

With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. 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 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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president

[Mojorabbit]

183. The President just said that we "tortured folks".

If I were a prosecutor, I sure would think he knew what he was talking about.

[rhett o rick]

184. Give you a break? For defending the President who seems determined to give Dick Cheney the medal

of Freedom for limiting the torture to just some folks.

I am sick and tired of the excuse that Pres Obama used those particular words because prosecution would be too hard. Bullcrap. The words he used were carefully chosen and very disturbing to me. If he is afraid to attempt to prosecute he should at least have had the fortitude to denounce the torture. He choose to rationalize and minimize it. To apologize if you will.

Well Mr. President, I will follow your advice and not be "sanctimonious", but damn if I am going to buy the crap you are selling.

At the very least tell us the truth. Tell us that the torture by this country was wrong, very wrong and a black mark on the American people. And that we will strive to insure that it never happens again. I won't be sanctimonious but mad as hell until then.

[Ed Suspicious]

288. Too afraid to not torture. Too afraid to prosecute. Fear seems a powerful motivator

for the president. I do not approve.

[WinkyDink]

259. Great satire!

[Skittles]

45. no

the reasoning is, "I will accept no criticism of my hero." No doubt they would not accept torture from repukes or even another Democrat - it is sheer hypocrisy and yes it is sickening.

[mindwalker_i]

49. Yes, it is sheer hypocricy

By taking that position - that torture doesn't matter because a Democratic president said it was ok - they are saying that the issue itself is irrelevant.

Yes, sickening.

[Skittles]

54. alas, it is not just a Democratic president

it is THIS president only

[stupidicus]

31. in other words

"I know we can't undermine anything he posted as a factual matter nor the justifications for and reasonability of the conclusions reached, but through the miracle of mutual positive reinforcement and hollow declarations like the one I offered, we can insulate ourselves from the equally reasonable and justified ridicule brainless sniping deserves."

[rhett o rick]

310. I like that. I hope you don't mind if I use something similar. With regard the sad sniping by those

that have hooked their wagons to the Obama Star, thru sickness and health, they really are desperate as they find themselves apologizing for someone apologizing for Dick Cheney's Torture Program.

How about this:

What I hear is: "Since neither myself nor my compadres have anything of reason to counter the argument, we will cover by throwing mindless innuendo, ridicule and/or ad hominem attacks to discourage or dissuade. "

[stupidicus]

336. thanks, and use away rick

I would only suggest that you include wording -- in the case of an attempted pile-on as seen here -- to reflect or support the fact that they are really little more than a "reacharound" so to speak that attempt to provide some pleasure to offset the pain of having nothing meaningful or substantive to say.

It's this same process writ large that allows the modern rightwingnut (the ego preservation measure known as denial) to get over or to be unbothered by the fact that they've largely individually and collectively been on the wrong side of history in this country since its founding, and spectacularly so in recent decades. A cult can't survive without it.

If there's one thing that has really been striking to me since the start of my participation here, it's how similar the debating tactics are between righties and lefties. I suppose that is to be expected, since a lacking of intellectual heft and integrity severely limits the options available when the known facts in their totality work against you.

[sabrina 1]

122. Down with the Constitution and up with War Crimes? Is that what you intended to

convey, or maybe you just didn't read it.

In case you didn't here's the short version. Torture is illegal under our laws and under International law. Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld et al broke those laws.

Right Wingers cheered them on. WE otoh, Democrats spent the entire Bush years OPPOSING the violations of those laws, working to kick out the criminals so that finally, the Rule of Law would be restored.

We were joined by every Human and Civil Rights organization in this country and elsewhere.

WE WON. Finally. We kicked them out of the Senate, the WH and the House with promises of a restoration of the Rule of Law.

Now we are told by the President we elected to restore the Rule of Law, that the torturers were patriots, just a little scared and we should 'understand' them.

While we, that would be Democrats, should not be Sanctimonious about it. That is a familiar word, often used by the Third Way to describe the base of the Dem Party btw.

Your thumbs down means what? I don't want to assume anything. Emoticons on their own don't contribute much to discussion forums.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

208. Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld and all the rest didn't torture because they were scared

and they didn't invade Iraq out of fear it had nukes.
Just stop all this nonsense and call it for what it is, LIES!

[sabrina 1]

266. If you're asking me to 'stop all this nonsense' you don't have to. I KNOW why Cheney/Bush/

Rumsfeld did what they did. They are liars, traitors, criminals and they got away with it.

I was pointing out to the poster with the 'thumbs down' emoticon the facts in case s/he didn't already know them, since s/he seems to agree with the President that Cheney/Bush/Rummy and their war criminal friends were just frightened 'patriots'.

That is the person to whom you should direct your comment. I completely agree with YOU.

[Enthusiast]

284. Well they certainly didn't torture because they were patriots.

It was lies all the way down, just like turtles.

[Enthusiast]

283. Wow!

Nice post.

[Ed Suspicious]

289. .

[stonecutter357]

137. .

[Cha]

264. Hey stonecutter, do mind me jumping in here to say I think LordGlenconner got a Hide

Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2014, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

for stating a simple fact? "Piece of Shit Used Car Salesman" ad nauseam

[Dr Hobbitstein]

291. +A Brazillion! N/T

[uponit7771]

2. Obama also said the word "the"... pisses me off when he said "the" and even drags it out sometimes

... no really, chaps my hide and shit.


Just trying to relate by picking out words to be pissed about

[Demit]

6. That is not even cute.

[uponit7771]

146. Relative to the last time the "piece of shit" president said something someone didn't like i think

...it's a pretty funny.

I mean, 5 - 6 years 123ou24n onpa;eofn billion speeches and talks and 12 things wrong seems like a pretty decent number to me...

My expectations isn't perfect, just workable...

The feedback I get from some is that Obama isn't workable... he's as set as George Bush is and that's that....

Cause, some need him to be as bad as Bush...

just my thoughts..

[Akira Watts]

7. Words

Because clearly, the article involved picking a random selection of Obama's words and flying into a rage. Instead of, you know, analyzing the entire fucking speech and detailing what is so very wrong with it.

As you'd well know, had you read it.

[msanthrope]

30. Hey...didn't Will Pitt just post an article of yours here? Are you returning

the favor?

Welcome to DU!!!

[Akira Watts]

34. Technically, yes, but with some explanation

Two articles, actually. Will is one of my wife's oldest and best friends, and we've been involved in an assortment of political debates over on his FB page. He suggested I try my hand at some opinion pieces, gave me a platform, and has promoted what I've put out. So I'm grateful as hell for țhat.

I also happen to very much agree with him here.

[msanthrope]

50. Awesome! So, did you agree with Will that the President is a piece of shit used car

salesman?

[JoePhilly]

61. Outrage generates eye-balls.

And this is the worst thing Obama has ever said ... since that last worst thing he ever said ... and it will be the worst thing he ever said ... until the next worst thing he ever said ... which he will say in a couple weeks.

[msanthrope]

63. And clicks!!! To third-party websites that need clicks! nt

[SunSeeker]

127. Bingo. nt

[sheshe2]

268. Well....

[msanthrope]

277. OMG.....THAT IS PERFECT!!! nt

[sheshe2]

342. Click Click Click...

[cui bono]

177. You are so right.

Just when you think he can't get any worse, he calls torturers "patriots" and those who want to uphold the constitution "sanctimonious".

[Akira Watts]

64. Salesman?

Not entirely. A good used car salesman would actually have made an effort to sell the Affordable Care Act, instead of letting it turn into the debacle that was the 2010 midterms.

But the sentiment behind Will's assessment? Very much agree.

[sheshe2]

271. Not surprising since your wife is BFF with Will!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025349092#post34

Were there any debates about the President of the United States being called a Piece of Shit Used Car Salesman before you agreed with Will's assessment? And did you ever find out why Will deleted that post?

Just a question, Akira Watts. You seem to have an insiders take on this and Will has never really answered the questions on an OP that offered him so many valuable avenues to pursue. You seem to be a voice for him. Will you answer what he has failed to do? So many on that OP expressed heartfelt pain for his wife's condition. Yet he failed to answer.

[Akira Watts]

275. ?

I was going to take a shot at answering your questions, but I am pretty sure you are some sort of experimental AI. I never get involved in that sort of thing, since every sci-fi tale I've read tells me it ends badly. Good luck, and see you after the singularity.

[Electric Monk]

98. That's a really nasty question for someone who might not be aware of the context.

It's a pretty nasty question even for those who do get the context, too.

[msanthrope]

100. Oh...he understood it. Don't forget to click the link! Money in

every click!

[Akira Watts]

104. Click bait?

If you're going to posit that the article is cynical click bait, I imagine you can back up that claim. It would seem more effective, if you disagree with the substance of an article, to explain your points of disagreement, as opposed to simply attacking the entire article as insincere.

[msanthrope]

120. Oh...I read nothing Will Pitt writes. Not since he failed to address some serious

misinformation regarding the ACA that he promulgated, and refused to correct. I mean...an entire thread was dedicated to addressing the misinformation, and Will simply refused to acknowledge it.

When a writer gets something so fundamental incorrect...and then refuses to correct it, I stop reading them. It isn't worth it.

[Akira Watts]

121. Misinformation

Read the article you're presumably referring to. Didn't read the thread that it spawned, but I don't recall seeing serious misinformation contained therein.

That said, if the offense was so egregious as to cause you to disengage, entirely, from Will's articles, that begs me to ask why you're here, on this thread. Seems weird and stalker-esque.

[msanthrope]

126. Yes....misinformation....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4686037


An entire thread was devoted to correcting that misinformation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4687956

I have repeatedly asked Will to correct his claim. I think professional writers who attempt to write authoritatively on a subject matter should correct and retract when they are shown to be incorrect.

And I thank you for the advice on where and how I should post. Being mansplained about DU by a poster who hasn't cracked 50 posts yet is pretty amusing.

[Akira Watts]

128. Post where you like

My point is that following someone you disagree with about DU and yelling "don't listen to him!" is odd behavior. But your call. I'm not telling you what to do.

[msanthrope]

130. Oh, thanks for the permission, kind sir!!! Yeah....how about I continue to post

where I like, without being told by some fellow writer Will is helping along (as you described upthread), who has been here for a few days, what I can, and cannot do?

[Akira Watts]

133. No problem, gentle sir

Though if you think I was telling you where and where not to post, go back and read for comprehensive. I merely noted that your posting choices are thumpingly weird. But do carry on with the weirdness - it's amusing.

[msanthrope]

134. Dude...you are telling me to read for "comprehensive?" My gender is clearly part of my username

and I used the term "mansplaining" to describe your behavior towards me. A word of advice.....if you are going to be a writer, a bit more situational awareness might be in order.

[Akira Watts]

136. Apologies

I assumed you had simply misspelled misanthrope.

[msanthrope]

139. Good writers should never assume anything. nt

[Akira Watts]

152. I like to assume the absurd and see what comes of it. nt

[msanthrope]

156. Great...another over-educated blogger who thinks he's the second coming of

Samuel Beckett. This isn't Waiting for Godot.

[Akira Watts]

162. I'd much rather be the second coming off James Joyce...

... as this occasionally seems reminiscent of Finnegans Wake. But that's just me being overeducated. I'll be happy to tone it down and speak only in monosyllables, if that helps.

[msanthrope]

168. The second coming "off" James Joyce? I bet you didn't even mean to write something that

funny, or Freudian.

Good job, Bloom. (And let's face it....that's the better work.)

[Akira Watts]

176. Autocorrect failure caught, good show

I caught it myself, and changed it a minute later, but not fast enough for you, I see. I'll change it back to the original, to preserve the cleverness of your retort.

[msanthrope]

180. See? Hang with me, your writing improves. nt

[Akira Watts]

182. Clearly...

... yet I still feel this emptiness, deep inside.

[cui bono]

172. And as you can see by this exchange there is plenty of absurdity on DU!

Welcome to it!

As you can see, some people take criticism of Obama very, very personally and have developed a deep hatred of Pitt because of it. I guess for at least one member, you are hated by association.

There are plenty of good, rational people on here though, so please don't let this insane incident drive you away. I'm sure that is part of the intent of it. But it sure reads as if someone has really lost their mind temporarily.

Welcome! Please stick around!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

140. Welcome to DU. Don't worry about the perpetually bitter and aggrieved.

Most members are a little kinder to new posters. The ones who aren't don't deserve your attention.

[Akira Watts]

143. Thanks

No worries. I'm used to the odd dynamics of online forums. By now I should probably know better than to poke the aggrieved with pointed sticks.

[m-lekktor]

145. there's a dedicated group here who

personally attack and bully anybody who dare criticize Obama. you will learn fast who they are so you don't waste your time engaging them when they bait you.

[Akira Watts]

155. I'd heard...

... about the phenomena, but I suppose this was my first encounter with one in the wild. I imagine it will only get more heated between now and 2016. No matter - it reminds me a bit of the good old days of Salon's TableTalk, circa 2000.

I'll try to refrain from taking the bait.

[grasswire]

281. A Table Talker?

Me too.

[rhett o rick]

186. Liberals don't need a hall monitor. nm

[neverforget]

263. The pettiness of this sub-thread is amazing.

and "hall monitor" is a good label for what this sub-thread was all about

[rhett o rick]

269. Some are in DU to discuss issues, others to ridicule, alert, lock and hide. nm

[woo me with science]

299. It is a very serious occupation.

24/7, including weekends and holidays.

[rhett o rick]

301. I suggest that we put them all on ignore or form a progressive group free from trouble makers. nm

[BuelahWitch]

171. Stalker-esque, yep, you have her pegged already!

Welcome to DU!

[cui bono]

167. Then why are you posting in a thread of Pitt's? Just to harass a new DUer?

Your hatred is showing and all you are doing in the thread is hurling insults. You're not making any points (or earning any either) and you even trotted out the old "used car salesman" meme.

You can do better than this. I know you can, even if I still disagree with what you say.

You owe Akira an apology for your behavior towards him in this thread. Very unbecoming.

[msanthrope]

173. Harass? We are having a lovely literary discussion!

I don't care about scoring points.

[cui bono]

175. How about at least trying to make one?

Seriously, you have let your emotions get the better of you in this thread. You should apologize and take a break. Or take a break first, you might need it to see how insulting you've been and to realize you should apologize.

[Akira Watts]

181. In utter fairness

I did mistake her gender for a typo and commit an egregious autocorrect error. She's clearly winning this one on points.

More seriously, a more useful discussion could be had if she bothered to read the article.

[msanthrope]

189. You committed a funny autocorrect error! nt

[Akira Watts]

192. Yay! Autocorrect error! That means Obama is perfect and we can all go home! Yay! nt

[Number23]

240. You are far more gracious and witty than your newly appointed and ardent defenders

Not that this is hard, mind you. Welcome to DU.

Edit: I just read your post #234 in this thread where you state "burn it all to the ground and start over." Not only was I completely wrong about how gracious and witty you are, but I now have no doubt that you will make lots and lots of friends in this forum which is the hallmark of someone with a very narrow view of the world and a tenuous grip on political reality.

[msanthrope]

252. I am sure he will enjoy his stay. nt

[sheshe2]

265. Well....Number23...

He is BFF with..


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025349092#post34

explains a lot does it not!? And he has been all over this thread. ALL over it. Hmmmm~ telling is it not. His friends are already here!

[Akira Watts]

276. ? Again

I'd be willing to bet money that you are fictional. Entertaining, but clearly from a different narrative level.

Bravo, I suppose.

[sheshe2]

292. Actually,

it is Brava. I am female, you can kinda get that from my user name.

[woo me with science]

296. Which username was that again?

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5237529

[QC]

314. What'cha implying there, woo?

[sheshe2]

339. Aaah that's so woo woo woo you.

You are saying I am a sock or is it a troll? Hmmm. That is indeed alertable.

[cui bono]

357. omg.... that is classic.

Her response to you makes it even better, especially if you follow her link.

[Akira Watts]

298. True, yes

But being somewhat uncultured, I am accustomed to using "Bravo," no matter the sex of the one it is directed at.

[woo me with science]

297. You're sharp.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5237529

Lots of messaging around here. Lots of theater.

[malokvale77]

220. "lovely literary discussion"?

Is that you Gohmert?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

205. Pretty funny. You don't read anything he writes, but you make sure to show up

and drop plenty of comments in the threads below. Looks like you just can't quit him, even if you loathe him.

[WilliamPitt]

206. As I always say in these cases,

"Thanks for kicking my thread."

[Hekate]

270. +1

[Akira Watts]

102. Context

I get the context, though I'm new to DU. The phrase has been used elsewhere. And I, by and large, agree with it.

I'm assuming, of course, that the question was a good faith attempt to understand my stance, rather than a cheap attempt at picking a fight.

[grasswire]

129. a sincere and warm welcome to DU!

[Autumn]

210. You just had a run in with our resident lawyer.

you know how lawyers are. Welcome to DU, hope to see more of your stuff.

[Akira Watts]

219. I'm no lawyer. . .

. . . but I've known more than a few in my day. Don't know what that was, but it wasn't a lawyer.

[Autumn]

226. I like you

I really like you.

[rhett o rick]

309. Now why would you bring that up again and again and again? Just trying to keep things stirred up

for the upcoming elections?

[msanthrope]

317. Why wouldn't I bring it up? Seriously....it's a proud and shining moment for the OP, isn't it? nt

[rhett o rick]

319. No but it seems you are obsessed with attacking the OP author. It has nothing to do with this

thread and appears to me intended to start a fight. Apparently you lack countering arguments so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

[msanthrope]

320. No? It wasn't a proud and shining moment? nt

[rhett o rick]

322. You mean your ad hominem attack? Glad you saw the light. nm

[msanthrope]

324. No--I mean the OP's magnum opus. Don't be coy, rhett....it does not suit you. nt

[rhett o rick]

325. So I got it wrong and you're proud of your ad hominem attack. Whatever. nm

[msanthrope]

326. How is referencing the OP's own writings an ad hominem attack? You remind me of

a DUer who accused me "smearing" Glenn Greenwald....because I had quoted Glenn Greenwald.

[rhett o rick]

327. The only reason for you to bring up what the OP author said in a different OP

is to attack him. If you didn't like what he said, make your statement. Constant repeats of the same statements over and over, constitutes an attack.

[Akira Watts]

331. It's not an attack; it's esoteric performance art. nt

[msanthrope]

335. How is it an attack, to quote the OP's own words back to them? nt

[uponit7771]

147. "Because clearly, the article involved picking a random selection of Obamas words and flying into a"

... Yeap, sounds like something someone who thinks Obama is a "piece of shit" would do no?

tia

[Akira Watts]

158. Perhaps

But that would be akin to commenting on an article without reading it.

[LondonReign2]

78. That's truly plumbing the depths of dumb

I presume even you know better yet this is the best criticism you could manage of the article?

[cui bono]

151. Unbelievable. You seem to think torture is just a quaint little thing we shouldn't bother

our pretty little heads over.

Or is it too hard to read and respond with anything of substance?

Your response is offensive. To belittle something like torture with that smarmy retort is beneath anyone who values human life and dignity.

[uponit7771]

157. I also think cute little bunny rabbit ears are too long... so.. snip snip :rolleyes:

... believe what you want, I can't control that.

Its just fun to watch those go around acting as Obama hasn't said or done worse without this kind of poutrage...

This looks more and more about something to be pissed at him about vs some real immoral shit

[cui bono]

164. So you don't think torture is immoral then?

Wow.

Its just fun to watch those go around acting as Obama hasn't said or done worse without this kind of poutrage...

Curious as to what you believe he has done that is worse? Especially considering you use the term "poutrage" in the same sentence. If he has done worse than this - I guess you are talking about killing innocent people with drone strikes except there is plenty of true outrage over that so it must be something else - and this is pretty fucking bad, what is it? And why would you then characterize people's negative reactions to it as "poutrage"?

[Akira Watts]

165. Poutrage

Are we only allowed to be angry about the worst thing he has done? Anything bad, but not the worst, is off limits? That makes for an oddly stilted debate, doesn't it?

[Divernan]

166. I like your style, AW. Welcome to DU!

You beat these blind supporters like a drum.

[malokvale77]

223. Welcome to DU

I will be looking forward to your posts.

[Akira Watts]

224. Thanks

I'll be focusing on further literary discussions with the deranged.

[malokvale77]

229. Good

Sounds like DU is going to become a whole lot more interesting.

[questionseverything]

191. what is worse than him defending the people who committed torture?

read the list at the following link and tell me what is more immoral than raping children in front of their parents, skinning people alive,stuffing children in dark boxes with vermin after being beaten and starved......

for god's sake...what is worse

http://generalstrikeusa.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/30-kinds-of-approved-torture-used-by-the-c-i-a/

[grahamhgreen]

216. Torture. You're talking about innocent people tortured to death here.

[sabrina 1]

303. He also said the words 'we tortured'. The word WE 'chaps MY hide' because WE

did NOT torture anyone, WE, that would be Democrats, OPPOSED the War Criminals and all their crimes against humanity. Would it have been so difficult to be totally accurate and use the word 'THEY, meaning 'Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Gonzales (some of them are wanted for trial in other nations btw).

Funny, I find it very difficult to make light of torture. Maybe I don't have a sense of humor, I remember Limbaugh doing it, something about 'underwear on their head' and 'frat games', but I find torture to be beyond comedy.

[rhett o rick]

307. If you don't have a reasonable argument or comment, you should just add

a "." like some of your pals are. That is certainly less embarrassing. Desperation breeds absurd posts.

[L0oniX]

4. .

[kentuck]

5. The Friday Dumpster

And they chose their time very carefully. There were multiple distractions around the world. Russia and Ukraine. Planes being shot down. Israel bombing Gaza. Yet, they were not able to slip it by. That may be an indication of just how big this story is compared to the others?

[Scuba]

8. Some days I'm ashamed to be an American, and to have supported this man.

[DrBulldog]

13. Me, too.

Unfortunately, I'm too old now to move ... if I were 25 again I would likely be packing my bags for New Zealand, one of the truly great countries of the world.

[hifiguy]

17. I feel exactly the same way.

In fact if I was even 35 again, I would be headed there. Spent two weeks in NZ in 2003 and it seems to me the best place on earth - Scandinavia without the winters but with a perfect climate and lovely people.

[SammyWinstonJack]

257. Me too.

[derby378]

9. Ever since I read the preview of this article...

...I've had a funny feeling that the proverbial poop is about to hit the fan.

Will is right, and I feel it bearing down on us minute by minute.

[ballyhoo]

10. He became a nonperson for me that day.

[pscot]

11. Obama is the most enigmatic president

of my lifetime, and I've seen a round dozen. If he has any bedrock values or principals I wish someone would explain them to me.

[Enrique]

22. he seems very conventional to me

if there are any differences between him and Bill Clinton for example, or Hillary Clinton for that matter, they aren't very profound.

[Puzzledtraveller]

190. He is pragmatic, sometimes to a fault.

I do sympathize with him as I too am very pragmatic.

[RufusTFirefly]

33. He won Ad Age's Marketer of the Year in 2008

Talk about truth in advertising.
That was a great big warning sign that people chose to ignore.
He's a brand.

And just as people are passionate about Coke vs. Pepsi, people get irate when someone discredits their favorite political product.

People used to cheer mightily when the San Diego Chicken menaced the Philly Phanatic, oblivious to the fact that the real game was being played on the field.

[truth2power]

125. Succinctly stated, Rufus. Obama is a brand, as Chris Hedges has been at pains to make everyone aware

practically since Obama was first elected.

Yes, the Obama campaign got Ad Age's Marketer of the Year award. As Hedges repeatedly says, "the professionals know what's going on".

[countryjake]

138. +1

[cui bono]

154. Well said.

And I did not know that about the Ad Age's Marketer of the Year in 2008 award.

Wow.

Just wow.

It kind of explains how the only time he really fights back is when he himself needs to. Remember how he fought during the campaign? He never does that for the people. He doesn't even try to negotiate properly. He just rolls over and lets both parties keep shifting rightward.

[RufusTFirefly]

213. Thanks!

A propos your remark, here's a classic:

[cui bono]

231. Yes, exactly.

But he never once folded during his campaigns.

[woo me with science]

344. A corporate award,

for a corporate president.

[Marr]

97. That's an easy one. Service the people at the top.

That's his only consistent principle.

[Autumn]

14. Excellent article Will. As a person who gets all "sanctimonious" about torture

because it's just fucking wrong I was rather stunned. Now you do know that that last paragraph is really going to get some "folks" upset cause you never really loved him and you were mean. IMO this article ranks right up there with The Ocean is Coming. Thank you Will for all your efforts.

[KoKo]

15. The "Talking Down" to us....(Human Rights Advocates & Organizations)

and the dismissal of all those others of us who spoke out against the torture..and still do about the indiscriminate drone strikes killing of innocents, the forced feeding hunger strikers in Gitmo...and the unknown but possible other tortures and renditions still yet to be revealed. That is what lingers in my mind about his Friday Dump.

We were just a bit of lint to brush off his shoulder in the language he used to dismiss us.

"Get over it!" was the message.

[chervilant]

278. He had a similar attitude towards teachers.

Do you recall? I think he was supporting Arne "I play basketball!" Duncan and the corporate shills who are working to continue their destruction of public education.

[hifiguy]

16. I voted for him with great enthusiasm in '08

and enthusiasm in '12.

Good thing there is a two term limit because after that smug little dismissal of barbarism I could not vote for him again.

And BTW, patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. It means nothing.

[Demit]

18. I like your final thoughts the best, the last graf at the link. Yes, the man is hollow.

I've been doing a lot of reading, brushing up I guess, on the Geneva Conventions, and the torture technique of sleep deprivation & how really serious that is...and how at Guantanamo it wasn't just sort of passively keeping someone awake...they used shackles. And had doctors watching to make sure the edema in their legs from being shackled standing up didn't form blood clots... Doctors! The whole thing is such a perversion of humanity, I had to keep reminding myself what century this is. And my country, the wonderful United States of America, doing this. Not in the heat of the moment. Not because we were skeered.

It's so deeply disgusting. And to have my president use casual words to describe it is obscene. He wasn't talking about being at a country fair, he was talking about man's inhumanity to man. And telling us that the perpetrators of it were patriots! And telling us that what was important about all of this was NOT that "some things" were wrong, but being sanctimonious in our reaction to them would be wrong!

I still have this feeling in my gut about that. He wasn't speaking off the cuff. This was a prepared speech. Those words and ideas were chosen carefully. This is a hollow man.

[840high]

26. ....

[northoftheborder]

35. These words spoken by the president made my blood run cold. I would never vote for him again.

I did vote for him - the alternative would have been even more dire. But I never supported his campaigns in any way. What are his real values? I can't figure him out. He's as complicated as Nixon. Many books will be written about him. His right-wing enemies certainly don't understand him - they should be jumping up and down with glee after that speech.

[RobinA]

85. This ^^^^

I brushed up (sanctimoniously) on the Geneva Conventions when this mess first started. Still have my copy around here somewhere. They are actually pretty unambiguous and to the point in my opinion. Deeply disgusting is right. I quit the APA (again, sanctimoniously) because they refused to say that psychologists taking part in torture was unethical. I have refused to fly a flag since the concentration camp in Cuba opened, and I will not fly it again at least until it closes. Then I'll think about it. If believing in basic human rights, forget the Constitution and the treaties we have signed we don't need them to tell us torture is wrong, is being sanctimonious, then sanctimonious be I.

Oh, and money to Amnesty International for this one. Back during Bush, every time they trashed reproductive rights, produced a legal brief that said torture was OK, or something else along those lines, I sent money to an applicable and opposing organization. Guess I have to get back to doing that.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

221. Good post. (n/t)

[woo me with science]

348. How did I miss this post before?

Excellent, excellent post.

[PowerToThePeople]

21. I had a post hidden one time

for posting a smiling pile of poop in regards to some of Obama's policies.

It is now a burning bag of shit.

He just tossed it at everyone with any moral fiber.

[stupidicus]

23. well, time is the great healer and revealer

given the way it always heals the wounds or wounds the heels.

I doubt that us sanctimonious ones have even so much as bruised his heel yet from the attempted crushing of our outrage and dissent under his, but give us time.

He's lost all standing to be talking about the rule of law or unaddressed injustices, and now really exemplifies why the former no longer exists in this country, and the latter when done, is really more of a burnishing pad than anything else.

From the beginning of the rightwingnut outrage over the tyranny of his EO/executive discretion use Boner is suing him for, I've asked rightwingnuts why they didn't whine about his failure to prosecute such things as the law of the land demands. Needless to say, the crickets have been working overtime on that one.

[DeSwiss]

24. K&R

''Not telling the truth to someone…in my opinion...is a crime. But what is a bigger crime is knowing that we are being lied to and turning our head the other way. We become the bigger liars.''

~Christina Rasmussen

[center][/center]

[Fred Sanders]

27. It is just his personal manner of speech, William. You should know better.

"We tortutred some folks" is somehow evil and outrageous, but "we tortured some people", that would have been perfect?

So he used an odd word to describe the tortured populace, a word he commonly uses in place of the word " people". Ask him why he has this odd speech pattern....

You know misunderstanding tone is the root of 90% of conflict in humans?

You just fell into that pit. His tone when he said it was not one of apology or defiance or satisfaction. You should replay the tape.

And a lot of folks were a lot scared back then as he said. Of course in retrospective the people should not have been pooping in their pants and should have seen the obvious lies, but the media wall to wall propaganda fear mongering was incredible....it showed so many the awesome power of corporations and government becoming one.

Remember the Dixie Chicks who dared to dissent? Kicked all the way to Europe to dissent and protest without being assassinated.

Bless them all, we need them again.

I know we all want prosecution for the war crimes, but look at the example of
Chile, many others.....it took a full generation for justice to begin to be served in Chile.

It is the way of the imperfect world of humans.

The wheel of justice turns even more slowly on the rich and powerful, but it turns.

[WilliamPitt]

29. I see a lot of people

choosing to single out the "folks" thing as a criticism overreach. If you'd read the article, you'd see that such criticism from me encompasses only two paragraphs of a 1,200 word article.

I mean, since we're talking about words, how about his calling the torturers "patriots," and calling those who are against torture "sanctimonious."

So, yeah. That.

[Fred Sanders]

36. I understand. But tone is important, you begin with a character assassination, and then pull back on

the throttle?

Too late.

[Skittles]

66. giving torture a pass

do tell us how YOU would put it

[Fred Sanders]

69. I think he can speak for himself, thank you very much for your input.

[cui bono]

161. He did speak for himself and he called the torturers "patriots" and those that want prosecution

"sanctimonious".

The fact that you decide to dwell on the criticism of the work "folks" shows you are being disingenuous in your defense of Obama and his minimizing and condoning torture.

So you believe that the torturers are patriots?

[Fred Sanders]

196. Do you like cinnamon in your apple pie?

[cui bono]

230. I love cinnamon! And apple pie!

Do you deliver?

[Fred Sanders]

247. That was the delivery.

[cui bono]

258. Then you need to work on your timing.

[Skittles]

315. LOLOL

omg

[Fred Sanders]

316. It's a keeper, right down to the pie.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. No, he started with mild criticism of 'folks', and built through "people were afraid"

pointing out that being 'afraid' doesn't allow one to violate the constitution or the UN treaty against torture, and then said Obama twisted the knife with "sanctimonious" and "real patriots". Tone is important, and Obama's tone was dismissive of people who believe in the rule of law and that torture is evil, while coddling of the torturers. Obama built to his character assassination in his press conference. Will, on the other hand built to a stinging criticism of a president who just took a dump on the normal morality of humans.

[rhett o rick]

321. Tone is totally important. And I was thinking you missed the boat. Pres Obama's tone was completely

dismissive. He dashed the hopes of some that held out for 6 years hoping that he would eventually come out and condemn torture. Well those hopes are dashed. He clearly tried to soft-sell the brutal, inhuman torture.

Sadly, some here are desperately trying to down-play the significance of this speech and are finding themselves apologizing for someone apologizing for Dick Cheney's Torture Program. I particularly like the attempts at distraction, "Hey look over there at the word "folks". It's such a nice word."

Torture is wrong and those that authorized it, carried it out, and apologize for it, are wrong.

[Fred Sanders]

323. I did not take his speech as an apology, more a resignation that there is nothing he can do without

the support of the American public, aka the corporate GOP boot licking media.

The true American public is at home, not in the streets, can barely lift themselves off the couch to go vote.

[rhett o rick]

328. If it was only resignation, he could have condemned it and indicated his resignation. He did

nothing of the kind. He rationalized and minimized it and called those that don't agree, sanctimonious. He called our disgust, sanctimony. I don't think there is a middle road here. Either you recognize the brutality and inhumanity of torture or you don't. He apparently doesn't.

Maybe you'd care to tell us how you feel about the torture that occurred.

[Fred Sanders]

329. I love cinnamon with my apple pie!

[rhett o rick]

330. I guess that means you've run out of things to say. nm

[arcane1]

39. The torture wasn't done out of fear. Anu Ghraib was not about fear.

It was definitely NOT about extracting "actionable intelligence."

The claim "it was all done out of fear" is a shameless lie; a rewrite of history.

[arcane1]

53. It's very effective at breaking people, and societies.

Abu Ghraib in particular was a PR event, whose main purpose was to make people think twice about resisting the invaders.

[Fred Sanders]

71. You believe it was staged to create fear in Iraqis and the world..not to mess with the likes of us?

I do not believe that. An arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads deliverable in minutes has already accomplished that.

[4Q2u2]

89. You are correct

This was not PR. It was by the "Play Book" policy. The Fear involved was using the Societal Moors of the Prisoners to break them down.
Dogs are unclean property being wielded by a Woman (also property) to subjecate Males of a Patriarchal system. Belittling them before their Peers and God. Loud Hedonistic Music of the Infidel, Sleep deparvation. Falsehoods and Reshaping of reality.

Anything above that in what the pictures showed, the human pyramids, the mocking outfits and further deparvation was the Sadistic Ideas of the local Controlling Authorithy. None of those tactics were in the "Play Book". The taking of the pictures alone shows the Sadist nature of the personalities that were in charge. We have prisoners from this war all over the world and no other like photos have turned up in the public. The "Play Book" was definitely used in those other places.

[gtar100]

68. Given many of the released photos, I'd say that "sadistic pleasure" had a lot to do with it.

I didn't see fear in the eyes or body language of the torturers. No, it was clearly mockery of their prisoners, utter shaming of them, not to mention the physical abuse. And they took photo ops showing their sadistic pride in their work. Despicable and utterly disgusting.

[Fred Sanders]

73. I was not referring to Abu Ghraib, I was talking about the fear in America....I agree with your post

[Autumn]

67. You said the truth right there. You look at those photos. There is no fear on their faces, those in

charge are clearly having a good time and enjoying what they are doing. That alone is what makes Obamas words a lie and a cover up. 20016 can't come soon enough as far as I am concerned. That bit about them being patriots cut me to the core and is a slap in the face to those Americans and their decedents who were tortured like my Grandfather in a POW camp in WW1

[Fred Sanders]

76. I was talking about the fear of the general public, as I thought my post clearly said. I agree that

Abu Ghraib was about sadistic pleasure.

[MNBrewer]

40. The problem isn't "folks" it's "TORTURED"

and the glib way it is glossed over by so many people, including the "Constitutional Scholar-President".

[Divernan]

83. Obama is to Constitutional Scholar as a paramedic is to board certified MD

Obama was never a Constituional Scholar; nor was he a law "professor". To the extent he presented himself as such, OR allowed others to represent himself as such, he was lying. I am reprinting below what I posted in DU several years ago. I've taught undergrads, grad students and law students at a small college, a large state university, a paralegal institute, and a private law school, including sitting in on the faculty senate meetings.

I've written papers, co-written text books, edited text books, presented papers and sat as a panelist at academic gatherings, etc. In other words, I really, really know what it means to refer to oneself as a professor at a university, or as a scholar in a given field. I taught for a total of 8 years. When I looked at Obama's curriculum vita, I saw none of what I would expect from someone claiming to be a scholar in a particular academic field. I did further research, particularly on what went on at the University of Chicago law school. My conclusion? Obama is to a Constitutional Scholar as a paramedic is to a board certified medical specialist.

He was NEVER a constitutional SCHOLAR, never published a single scholarly paper, and wasn't on tenure track.

He was a "senior lecturer" - that's the lowest level of teacher at a law school, below Full, Assistant, Associate, Adjunct and or Visiting Professors - at University of Chicago. Lecturers are not on a tenure track. He never even taught the basic, traditional course in Constitutional Law, required of all first year law students, and covered in detail in state bar examinations.

He taught three courses:
At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, never more than one per term (i.e, part-time). His most traditional course was in the narrow constitutional area of (1) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION . His (2) VOTING RIGHTS class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on (3)RACISM AND LAW.


Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites.

"Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured."

[Divernan]

92. O admittted bipartisanship means Dems ignore the poor, the environment, etc.

I just went back and reread the NYT article I linked to above and came across this absolute gem from O's teaching days re the negative impact of bipartisanship on the needs of the poor and that bipartisanship means abandoning the idea that the govt. can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection.

So we see, he made very informed choices throughout his presidency when it came to caving to the GOP. He has more than proved himself correct in the way that his overwhelming bipartisanship has played out with elevating the wealthiest at the expense of the rest of us, i.e., "the poor", and his concommitant choices re supporting fracking, Keystone and opening up the Atlantic Coast to drilling.

Challenging Assumptions

Liberals flocked to his classes, seeking refuge. After all, the professor was a progressive politician who backed child care subsidies and laws against racial profiling, and in a 1996 interview with the school newspaper sounded skeptical of President Bill Clinton’s efforts to reach across the aisle.

“On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Mr. Obama said.

[Marr]

101. I'd say he's more like a homeopath.

He knows how to sound juuuust enough like a doctor to draw a crowd.

[Fred Sanders]

105. I think we need to keep the powder wet until after the elections this year.

[MNBrewer]

304. and the next elections, and the next elections and the next elections...

There are ALWAYS elections coming up. "Now" never seems to be the right time, does it?

[Akira Watts]

305. Exactly

There is no magic finish line. There's never going to be the point where we can finally stop shutting up for the good of the party.

[Fred Sanders]

312. I meant keep the powder wet, meaning not screaming at the President....time for that later.

[Autumn]

209. That really surprises me, I thought he was.

He really was a blank slate. One we could all draw our own conclusions on.

[Divernan]

225. Wow! Non Sequitur!

[Demit]

55. So if he had said "We tortured some guys & gals" that would've been unremarkable too?

I think you are being disingenuous to the extreme. Word choices matter. When there are formal words and slang words that on the face of it are synonyms, the situation or context dictates which one the speaker or writer will choose. Otherwise you'd have to argue that "We the Folks of the United States" has exactly the same sound as "We the People of the United States" in the Preamble. Imagine that written in beautiful calligraphy on parchment!

Obama is noted for his oratorical abilities. He knows how to choose words that fit the occasion, how to phrase things to stir emotions in people. It's how he came to our national notice, as the keynote speaker in 2004. He chose the word "folks" for a reason.

[Akira Watts]

84. Exactly

Just because "we tortured some folks" is a phrase that sounds a little Bushian doesn't mean it just randomly tumbled from his mouth. He chose his words, and he intended their effect Ditto the "sanctimonious" phrase which, if anything, I find more annoying.

[Demit]

110. Oh yes! "Sanctimonious" sealed the deal for me too.

Being told that it's "important" not to hold ourselves up as being more moral than torturers!

You know, his syntax was so mangled in that sentence. "it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had."

You don't feel sanctimonious about a job, per se. The jobs being law enforcement and "national security teams." The job descriptions don't say 'And one of your duties will be to inflict pain on people to make them scream'. The sentence doesn't make sense on the face of it.

He was eliding over something—that something being what the holders of those jobs ended up doing that WASN'T in the job description. What his folks/torturers did WASN'T moral. But our president is telling us not only to ignore the immorality of the torture (btw, what was the "tough" part of the job? It certainly wasn't resisting the urge to abuse the power they had over prisoners helpless to retaliate) but also, don't pride yourselves on thinking you're better than those people BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT.

People have noted approvingly that he includes himself in that "us." Maybe he IS trying to tell himself he has to overcome his own personal revulsion, for whatever practical personal reasons he might have. But that is HIS moral failing, HIS moral weakness. He has no right to include me in his personal moral choices. I take no moral instruction from a man like that.

[onecaliberal]

91. This is not about President Obamas choice of vocabulary.

It's about the fact we tortured people, humans, some of them died, and not one person has been held accountable.

The constitution really is nothing. Pretending to have any moral authority after that is just wrong on so many levels. Like the writer pointed out its simple to do the right thing when it's an easy thing to do.

Seriously, stop and think about it. People we're put to death. Some of them innocent people caught up in wrong place at the wrong time.

[Art_from_Ark]

282. I think a few people were kind of held accountable

Lynndie England, for one. But they were the low men (and women) on the totem pole.

[onecaliberal]

306. Yes two people were punished.

So bushco could hold out a shiny object to distract America from going after him and the others in his admin who authorized torture.

[uponit7771]

148. OBAMA USED THE WORD "THE"!!!! DAMMIT!!!

[Divernan]

169. Soooooooooo weak.

[chervilant]

280. Sigh...

Yet another candidate for my IL...

Why do people have to be patronizing, derisive, and/or disingenuous--as though the issue is a single, solitary word ('folks') rather than the entire disgusting speech? I just don't want to read such drivel any more. And I've long since given up trying to engage such 'folk,' although I do confess I admire your efforts to do so.

[rhett o rick]

187. The Strawman re. the word "folks" is long been destroyed.

The President's speech was carefully worded as all president's speeches are. He was very clearly rationalizing and minimizing torture. He had the opportunity to rebuke those low-life assholes that tortured, not because we were scared but because they are psychopaths. Tell me that a human can torture another human without being a psychopath. And the president had the audacity to tell us not to be "sanctimonious". I won't be sanctimonious, but I am mad as hell. At the very least he should have condemned torture.

The President rationalized and minimized torture.

[chervilant]

279. Wow... Just, wow...

Back to my IL you go...

[Octafish]

28. President Obama couldn't prosecute Bush and Cheney, so...

...he had to make it palpable. Yeah, that's it.

PS: Thank you for another great article and analysis, Will Pitt.

[valerief]

38. Funny how 'folks' were told to be afraid after that new Pearl Harbor.

And 'folks' do whatever the teevee tells 'em'. If some of our leaders weren't really afraid, well, there was always that anthraxy stuff to put the pharoahgod in 'em.

Just like the horse whisperer can break a horse, the populace whisperer can break a nation.

[mopinko]

51. that is my problem.

keep fracturing the left, and see where it ends.
he isnt the master of the universe. he isnt really the commander in chief, even. the military, and particularly the cia, dont give a shit what he thinks or does. they are a world unto themselves.
we really have to keep our eye on the ball. this shit doesnt help.

there will be no accountability in our lifetimes if dont take back congress.

[valerief]

57. Who is "he"? I was talking about the PNACers and their echo machine. nt

[mopinko]

70. i was trying to make a point that

it works both ways.

[valerief]

72. Goodbye

[mopinko]

109. whatever.

stuck on angry does nothing but tear things down.
common ground is important. alliances are important. tearing them down is stupid.
no, i dont like this whole mess. i dont approve of torture.
but obama is not a king. expecting him to act like one in a democracy is foolish.

[Psephos]

58. "the populace whisperer"

fresh and accurate

[SamKnause]

41. K&R x 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 !!!!!!!!

[LeftyMom]

43. Content aside, I think it's so enraging because it sounds like Bush.

Try it. [Bush] We, uh, tortured some folks. Heh.[/Bush]

I don't know why a decision was made to imitate Bush's usage, but it was deliberate.

[pa28]

107. It was a speech by Bush delivered by Obama.

Especially the "sanctimonious" scold. Obama could actually pronounce the word but the tone was the same.

[bigtree]

47. as most regular readers here already know, I couldn't agree more

. . . kudos for calling it a 'cover-up'.

Kudos for highlighting the conflicts of interest in the editing of the report. Note the participation of three Bush CIA heads and others allowed access to the report before the American public to rebut the charges and assist in the editing (much of that in question as to whether we'll see it all or not.

Kudos for calling attention to the reason for the defensiveness from the administration over the report.

Kudos for highlighting the CIA obstruction, intimidation of Senate investigation staffers, surveillance of their work product, theft of their documents, and overall interference and foot-dragging in their investigation. Note that Brennan is Tenet's former chief of staff.

Kudos for pointing out that there aren't ANY justifications for torture.

Kudos for declaring that you're done with listening to any more platitudes from the President.

A few things unmentioned in this much-appreciated article of yours . . .

Several of the things which are likely in the report address practices and contrived authority which this administration still relies on to justify some of their own prerogatives to practice what the President rightly noted are what most Americans would call torture, and also used to justify his own administration's renditions and what has been termed 'extra-judicial killings' or summary executions from armed drones.


Some things I would like to hear from President Obama:

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025329957

You point out that it is still mostly about the actions of the previous administration. That's correct, but there's obviously some institutional reason for resisting disclosure of their activities in court and in outright refusal to comply with information requests from interested parties in the legislature. Most notably is the President's drone program which has the same authorization structure for killing that the Bush-era actors practiced and are presently defending against this report.

That's an area (and several others like GITMO) where I believe, and many others believe, is where the President's desire to protect his prerogative is influencing his foot dragging on a complete accounting of the previous administration's conduct. If that speculation seems obtuse and hard to confirm, it's because it's designed to by the administration, many believe, to hide the fact that it is his own order (or refusal to rescind all of Bush's (note that he said he outlawed only 'some' of the practices) which allows these objectionable, and possibly illegal, programs to operate or continue).

Note, as well, that there are still over 200 CIA employees who were involved in the torture program still employed at the CIA.

Certainly, as well, all of those policies can be debated and resolved in some way through making those actions available to the legislature to mitigate and judge. That's not a course this administration has chosen to take on a number of remnants from Bush's 'war on terror;' like renditions, torture-friendly nations, 'extra-judicial killings, and the like. Authorization on all of these may well be successfully mitigated through Congress, but the President has made a determination to hold back accountability for whatever authority he's assumed to carry out these policies and actions(to order them).

Those are areas where the Bush-era abuses and the present activities of the Obama CIA collide. Those are the prerogatives of President Obama which he shares with the former administration that he's fought to obscure and keep secret through many questionable moves.

That obstruction, that collusion with the prerogatives of the Bush administration's 'war on terror' may well have withstood legislative attempts to delve deeper and demand more public accountability, but the Senate was spurred to investigate the CIA activities under Bush because of deliberate, and admitted destruction of key evidence. Having been confronted about that by Congress, the agencies involved agreed to provide dual paperwork which they claimed contained the same evidence that had been discarded. That's where the present investigation took over, first under Jay Rockefeller, then under Sen. Feinstein in 2009.

In the course of that investigation, there was systematic and blatant interference, obstruction, surveillance, and intimidation of committee staffers by the Brennan/Obama CIA. It was first denied by the director when confronted in March; later admitted to (as you say) last week.

What did the President know about the CIA's obstruction, interference, and intimidation of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers investigating the agency's activities?

What role did the President have in what Sen. Feinstein terms 'eliminating or obscuring key facts that support the report’s findings and conclusions?'

I'm asking DUers, at what point do we conclude that there's enough evidence that the Obama White House is unlawfully obstructing the Senate investigation's report? Do we wait for the Senate committee members to say so? (they've come very close to that conclusion)

I'm all for waiting to see what the White House ultimately decides to leave in and leave out of it's 'executive summary' of the investigation's findings, but there's already enough interference, obstruction, intimidation, and 'redacting' on the record for me to conclude that something major is being perpetrated - even if someone in or out of the WH can rationalize us away from calling it a 'cover-up.'

I would further ask or seek to uncover, what role the Obama CIA has played in not only protecting or defending the prerogatives of the Bush-era abuses, but how many of those have been continued or perpetuated in this administration and into the future for other Presidents to advantage their own actions?

In all of that, I see serious questions of obstruction of justice; violations of the Fourth Amendment; violations of the separations of powers, including the Speech and Debate clause; and as Sen. Feinstein put it, actions which may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.

What most people are asking for is due process of law, and a responsiveness to the oversight responsibilities of our legislature. that is the area where this administration has, I believe, inserted itself in an overt and questionable manner. I wonder why?

What is is about the prerogatives of the present Obama CIA that is preventing them from being as open as the Senate Intelligence Committee desires and expects? That's the pretext the President is giving critics and investigators to tie him to the abuses and activities of the Bush-era tortures; the cover-up. That's what has been the sticking point in most 'scandals' involving the Executive Branch. I happen to believe that most of the obstruction is unnecessary, but obviously, this administration, this President, feels there's something in that process for him to defend.

The manner in which it's being defended by the administration is the subject of debate, as it should be. This isn't inadvertent obstruction, it's deliberate and highly questionable behavior which is trampling on more than a few laws. I happen to think the President would be better served to order all relevant information be revealed. I think he would disagree with that. So, there we are.

Let's see how far President Obama is willing for his CIA to bend to the wishes of the Senate investigators in the coming weeks, but I don't think we should lose sight of, or refuse to seek accountability for the obstruction from those offices, over which he has ultimate authority, that's already occurred.

[danriker]

86. This is a great post.

A terrific, logical post. If you aren't a lawyer, you think like one. I couldn't agree more that what the President should have done, and still could do, is just confess it all, and reveal it all, and then take steps to try to prevent it from happening. The first step should be simply to close Guantanamo. That is the way the U.S. regains respect and credibility. We don't achieve that by justifying, defending, and continuing to cover up actions that by any standard were illegal, immoral and just plain wrong.

I doubt we ever will see any prosecutions. You know that the only way prosecutions could have a solid moral -as well as legal - basis is if they started with those who gave the orders - those right at the top. And that is not going to happen, and maybe shouldn't happen. There is a dangerous precedent in such actions, even if they have validity in the specific cases.

There is a pattern to Obama's actions as President. In areas where he had personal knowledge or experience he acted with more confidence and independence. In areas where he has little knowledge, or experience, he relied on the insiders. He wouldn't take a chance on the outsiders, dissenters and rebels. He did that with Wall Street and the banks. He did it with the military. Even though he seemed to stand up to some in the military, he bought the surge idea, even though there was plenty of evidence that the reasons for the "success" of the surge in Iraq were not those being trumpeted, and there was little evidence that even similar conditions existed in Afghanistan. For example, during the Bush Administration, there were purges at the CIA of dissenters, of those who wouldn't follow the company line, or just those who had reputations for independence. Those were the people he should have brought back, not the ones who kicked them out.

Obama is not Lincoln. The man he should have modeled himself after was Theodore Roosevelt. He had no fear.

[bigtree]

106. many thanks, Dan

. . . kudos to you for weighing in here.

Welcome to DU.

[scarletwoman]

238. Thank you for a most excellent post.

Cuts straight through to the heart of these matters.

[BrotherIvan]

239. I hope everyone reads this post

You're really doing a great service by putting all this information together.

[Mojorabbit]

241. + a gazillion. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

48. a fiefdom at the whim of presidential policy.

I have a question for all the well-meaning people who praise President Obama for “banning” torture:

Would you also find it helpful for the president to ban kidnapping? Child abuse? Mail fraud?

Maybe you would. After all, no one likes kidnapping, child abuse, or mail fraud. Maybe it would be good if the president banned them.

But of course, it would be incoherent to talk of the president banning such practices—because these things are all illegal. And in a democracy—in a country under the rule of law—the president has no more power to prohibit what’s illegal than he does to permit it.

Fair enough, you might say, but isn’t banning what’s already illegal just kind of a suspenders-and-a-belt thing? A bit of emphasis, an arguably redundant exclamation point?

No, it’s not. Purporting to ban what is already illegal is in fact terribly insidious. And here’s why, in two axioms.

1. What fundamentally makes something a law is that if you violate it, you will face punishment.

2. What one president can prohibit, another can permit.

Put these two concepts together, and what do you get when a president reacts to governmental law-breaking by: (1) not prosecuting anyone involved; and (2) instead “banning” what they did?

What you get is not a proscription of law, but a policy of choice.

And this is why Obama’s notion that he has the power to “ban” torture, and his failure to prosecute anyone who ordered it, is so insidious, so caustic to the rule of law (and note that Obama hasn’t even “banned” all torture—only some!). Obama is cementing in the mind of the public the notion that torture is not a crime, but merely a policy choice.


https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/08/dont-cheer-obamas-ban-torture

[Demit]

142. I thought that too. Banning torture is like banning human sacrifice.

Oh jeez, but he hasn't banned human sacrifice. Well, maybe he's planning to, which would make us all even more proud of our country.

[AuntPatsy]

56. ....justice seems only for those that can afford it sadly...

[rock]

59. "We tortured some folks"

"But unlike Hannibal Lecter, we did NOT eat them afterwards!"

[Ikonoklast]

60. So many people, so ignorant of all political reality.

Including many self-professed 'experts'.

[Peacetrain]

62. Finally someone in the goverment admits we tortured people

(sorry the "some folks" gets you ire up..)

Yep we should prosecute people.. and while some did it at the behest of orders from above, it does not remove us from our personal values..

So while the President admits some saw themselves as "patriots" somehow.. it does not make it so

And that is how I read it.. He has always always always had the Achilles heel of explaining both sides at the same time..

He is holding those in higher seats of power responsible.. by letting people see.. yep.. we were all afraid, but that does not make it right.

[tavernier]

75. That is how I understood it.

Thanks for putting my words in your mouth. 😄

[Akira Watts]

80. Patriots

He didn't say those who carried out torture saw themselves as patriots, he said they were patriots. Rather different things. The latter is a morally threadbare excuse.

[countryjake]

153. Welcome here to DU, Akira Watts!

And I don't even see it as an excuse, cause the person who said it is not just some commentator or pundit droning on about how great this country is, he is the man. He stated what he sees as Fact, what he expects all of us sanctimonious objectors to get thru our heads...this is the way it is going to be, whether those of this nation with a conscience agree or not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. He was explicitly absolving those in higher seats of power of any responsibility

That was the point - he said there was enormous pressure on them, they had a tough job, they were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots. And we shouldn't feel too sanctimonious about this. He said "hopefully, we don't do it again".

He said nothing whatsoever about holding anyone responsible. He said Brennan will make sure "lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved". Nothing about holding Brennan himself accountable. Obama is saying the fox is still in charge of the henhouse, and any squawks you hear are just sanctimonious, because Obama has "full confidence" in the fox. "Hopefully", he won't kill any hens again.

[JoeyT]

214. And called the people that opposed torture sanctimonius.

I notice you conveniently left that part out, because it makes the narrative uncomfortably shift from "The president admitted we tortured but there's nothing he can do." or "Bipartisanship is awesome, even when we don't like it." to "The president supports torture, and thinks you suck for opposing it."

[truth2power]

318. Obama clearly says that HE sees them as patriots. You're giving him a pass on this...

Here is the quote:

" A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots,..."

Lot - subject

are - verb (yes, I'm leaving out the compound 'were working' for purposes of clarity)

patriots - direct object

He doesn't say they believe themselves to be patriots. He says they ARE patriots.

[whatchamacallit]

65. K&R The government wrapped itself around a lie on 9/11

Everything that's followed has been a projection of that lie. Sorry, we're too far gone for sanctimonious expectations of justice.

[mmonk]

74. Very good and as you may have noticed, I facebooked it.

But to be honest, with me, it has been a problem rumbling inside me ever since he took office and talked about "looking forward" and not our disgrace.

[tgards79]

77. The Guns of July....Let's Blame It All on Obama

The world is aflame, and of course, like my broken lawn mower, it is all Obama's fault:
http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2014/08/july-month-in-review-guns-of-july.html

[Maedhros]

81. Um...what does this have to do with a cover-up of Bush-era crimes? [n/t]

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. What has your link got to do with what Obama said? (nt)

[leftstreet]

79. DURec

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. The reason he's not prosecuting those "patriots" is because a lot of Dems signed off on torture.

[Akira Watts]

88. Prosecutions

There's room between prosecutions and offering excuses. It involves saying "We tortured." Full stop. No folksy qualifiers. No tattered cover of stress and patriotism.

Politically, there was little need for the excuses Obama offered. It was unforced and, I think, shows a little bit more about what's going on behind his rhetoric. And I don't like what I see.

[Maedhros]

242. That's a piss-poor reason.

Pro-torture Democrats need to be run out on a rail, just like pro-torture Republicans.

[Zorra]

93. Why do you hate fascism, you "sanctimonious" "f****in' r****d" liberal?

[truth2power]

333. Good one! Didn't Rham Emanual use both of those terms to describe liberals? Thought so. n/t

[tularetom]

94. Obama offers the "Otter Defense"

"The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or tortured a few folks. We did."

[proverbialwisdom]

96. TAKE ACTION: Here's what whistleblowers want the public to do/Hint: it isn't piling on the president

PETITION: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/torturetruth

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/top-interrogators-and-intelligence-officials-urge-president-obama-ensure-cia
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/experts-call-cia-torture-report-release-obama-says-us-tortured-after-911
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/letter-retired-military-leaders-president-obama-cia-and-release-torture-report

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/campaigns/release-senate-report-cia-torture-program

Link from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025336796

bigtree OP: Letter from Retired Military Leaders to President Obama on CIA and the Release of the Torture Report

[center]

[/center]

[KoKo]

116. Recommend..and checking out the provided action links..

[rtracey]

99. Ummmm

"The presidency of Barack Obama ended on Friday, August 1st, 2014, as far as I am concerned. He'll sit in that round room until January of 2017, but he can go peddle his platitudes elsewhere. By lining up with and defending the torturers, he has added his name to the roll call of shame that continues to dishonor this nation. I no longer have any interest in what he has to say."

Really?....no interest in what he says ever again....arrogant

[ReRe]

103. K&R

... William Rivers Pitt, you hit the nail right on the head. Can add nor subtract anything from what you said. Yes, he came to the fork in the road and decided to take the path most traveled, instead of the one traveled less.

[historylovr]

112. K & R

It's hard to describe that speech without lapsing into "colorful metaphors" and "sentence enhancers," but you break it down nicely. Critics chide for talking about the word "folks," but that's just the point, isn't it--it all seemed so casual.

[VanGoghRocks]

362. Hannah Arendt called it 'banal' back when matters like torture and crimes against humanity actually

meant something.

[historylovr]

364. I like that term.

It certainly fits.

[woo me with science]

365. I call it "Third Way blase."

The deliberate attempt to normalize the unconscionable by yawning at it.

[frazzled]

113. While your moral authority expired at least 10 years ago.

Just saying. And if you want me to say why, I will.

[Electric Monk]

117. ok, please do so. nt

[Akira Watts]

119. Moral authority

Probably slightly more useful to talk about the president's moral authority, or lack thereof. But that's just me.

[krawhitham]

124. Please explain

[frazzled]

131. I asked the OP permission to explain, not other posters

It was personal and would put them in a bad light, so I would need their permission. Although I was the victim of this lapse of morality, I myself do not cross certain boundaries.

[xocet]

188. Did I hear correctly that you are good friends with Glenn Beck? I'm just asking.... n/t

[frazzled]

202. Are you?

What a horrible and disgusting thing to say.

[xocet]

204. Apparently, you did not get it. n/t

[Divernan]

200. Your call out reminds me of McCarthy's fictional "list"

During a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican-Wisconsin) claims that he has a list with the names of over 200 members of the Department of State that are "known communists." The speech vaulted McCarthy to national prominence and sparked a nationwide hysteria about subversives in the American government.

Speaking before the Ohio County Women's Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, Senator McCarthy waved before his audience a piece of paper. According to the only published newspaper account of the speech, McCarthy said that, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department." In the next few weeks, the number fluctuated wildly, with McCarthy stating at various times that there were 57, or 81, or 10 communists in the Department of State. In fact, McCarthy never produced any solid evidence that there was even one communist in the State Department.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-says-communists-are-in-state-department

It also reminds me of the crap one would find at one of the blogs like Free Republic which have made a career of attacking Will Pitt. I'm sure that Mr. Pitt, like all of us, has had his ups and downs, and made a few mistakes along the way. I certainly didn't always agree with his POV in the early days of DU. However he has grown and matured with the years - particularly with his marriage and parenthood, and is a rare stalwart for progressive Dems. You don't have to like him, but I don't care about your personal opinion of him. This is not Dear Abby. Respond to the facts and opinions in his writings, if you disagree with those. Otherwise DU is not the venue for personal call-outs.

[Akira Watts]

201. Agreed

"I know some negative fact about you from ten years ago and I'm going to tell everyone I know it but not say what it is" is a failure of an argument in every way. Do you even know how to ad hominem?

[LittleBlue]

115. He's been such a forgettable president

No apparent beliefs or principles. On too many issues he kept the status quo of his predecessor, or a light version. Unlike Bush, Obama preemptively runs from fights, or any confrontation at all. Especially toward the GOP. At least he wasn't a crazy war nut like Bush, though he did try to get us involved in Syria.

He has a good voice and is a good speaker, and he gave us mandated insurance. That's about all I feel regarding President Obama. It's hard to believe that what appeared to be so promising in 2008 has ended up like this.

[Maedhros]

243. On many issues, Obama exceeded the efforts of Bush.

Drone strikes and associated civilian casualties.

Claiming the power to execute citizens without due process or accountability.

Indefinite detention codified into law.

Increasing military operations in Africa by 217%.

Deportations of immigrants.

Adding people to the terrorist watch list and no fly lists.

[Akira Watts]

246. His foreign policy is Bush + competence nt

[Maedhros]

255. Numerous writers and others have observed that Obama's foreign policy

is a direct continuation of Bush's. I'd say it goes farther back; I'd say it's a direct continuation of Reagan's, which is true of the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II Administrations. I'd entertain an argument that it goes farther back than that.

Bottom line: our foreign policy doesn't change, despite who occupies the White House.

[pa28]

123. He looked and sounded like a bored restaurant manager who already has his orders from the owner.

We're a loooong way from 2008 and hope and change here.

[leftstreet]

150. +1

That's brilliant!

I always think of him as a mediocre CEO, but 'bored restaurant manager' just sings

[truth2power]

132. Let me emphasize what Obama is saying, here...

The TORTURERS are patriots.

We, who reject such actions are being SANCTIMONIUS!

How utterly disgusting!



Oh, and then there's this:

Beyond that oath is the Geneva Convention Against Torture, of which the United States is a signatory, and is therefore bound to its edicts. Article Two, Section One of the Convention reads, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." In other words, no excuses, period, end of file. "Afraid" is not an excuse. (emphasis mine).

Pray tell...what does Mr. Constitutional Law Professor have to say about that little tidbit??

[Divernan]

197. Never a constitutional scholar or expert in either academia OR the courtroom

I explained in detail in post 83 on this thread why Obama has no cred to call himself (or allow others to call him) a constitutional law PROFESSOR or SCHOLAR.

And I would add to that, that Obama was neither an actual trial lawyer NOR a constitutional lawyer
Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases -- about 30 -- and spent only four years as a full-time lawyer before entering politics.

For purposes of comparison, i.e., Obama worked on 30 cases in 4 years - the first law firm which I worked for upon being admitted to the bar was a civil litigation firm. By the end of my FIRST year, I had a caseload of 40 cases for which I was the attorney of record, i.e., with full responsibility/client contact/handling depositons/ arguing motions/working with expert witnesses/ and, if the case didn't settle/ trying the case. That was the norm in my firm. My clients included Chrysler, General Electric, Otis Elevator, Remington, national construction firms, and were primarily product liability and commercial construction cases. I'm not comparing O's 30 cases in 4 years to a bunch of slip & falls/whiplash claims. By the end of my second year I had argued cases in the federal district court and federal court of appeals, as well as state trial and appellate courts. This was not a big deal - this was the norm for the lawyers my firm hired.


The name partner who recruited Obama described O thusly:

Judson Miner, head of the firm that bears his name, recruited Obama. Obama took time to complete "Dreams From My Father," then joined the 13-attorney firm. "He was doing the work that any first-year or second-year associate would do," Miner said. "In litigation, he was doing basic research and writing memos. . . . In the first couple years he would play a very minor role. He wouldn't know [much], so he would take the lead from whoever was supervising his work."

Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a single case (not a constitutional law or civil rights case) before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration. No mention that he ever went to court on that lawsuit. That one appellate case he touts? He fought the good fight for a securities trader. How did that fit in with his claims re community organizer, fighting for civil rights?
" He took the lead arguing a 1994 case before the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a securities trader who had been improperly fired. The court ruled for his client." Yeah he had cases in the projects, but it was defending a slumlord from a tenant and in another case, defending a slumlord for failing to provide heat for low income tenants on the South Side in the winter.

But the firm also handled routine legal matters and real estate. Obama spent about 70% of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate[/b]. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.

In one instance, Obama defended a nonprofit corporation that owns low-income housing projects against a lawsuit in which a man alleged that he slipped and fell because of poor maintenance. Obama got the suit dismissed.

In another case, Obama appeared on behalf of a nonprofit corporation that provided healthcare for poor people. A woman who claimed income of less than $8,000 a year had sued Obama's client to obtain a $336 payment for baby-sitting services; Obama's client paid up, and the case was settled.

In 1994, Obama appeared in Cook County court on behalf of Woodlawn Preservation & Investment Corp., defending it against a suit by the city, which alleged that the company failed to provide heat for low-income tenants on the South Side during the winter.

Those were not the cases Obama highlighted in the self-portrait drawn in his first memoir, "Dreams From My Father."

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/06/nation/na-obamalegal6

[truth2power]

332. Thanks, so much, divernan, for your detailed work on Mr. Obama's tenure

as a so-called 'professor' of Constitutional Law.

I did know that he (and others) had played fast-and-loose with that part of his previous experience, but not anywhere near in the detail you have provided. Excellent legal research. I'm going to file your response, including post 83, for further reference.

For myself, I try to refrain from just throwing out a statement such as, "He wasn't a real professor" because then one of the Harpies shows up to say "Prove it. Prove it." I carry a lot of info around in my head, but, unfortunately, I'm not very organized. So, going back to re-research something is a pain.

And even if I do spend time and effort to verify something, it's been my experience that the questioner just moves on to some other trivial point and it all begins to resemble what's come to be known as the "Gush Gallop" (You can google it.) And I just don't want to play.

Your narrative should signify QED, but I wouldn't bank on it.

[Divernan]

334. You're welcome. Some good investigative reporters did the work.

I just googled and put a few reports together. But it is significant information, given how fast and loose Obama has played with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the most the bots have come up with when I've set out his lack of credentials with is ohhh, don't yell at the president. Pfft!

[QuestForSense]

135. Lately I've noticed that he's starting to tell it like it is.

Whoever told him to start with this subject gave him some very bad advice.

[WilliamPitt]

144. You got me.

P.S. Your OP title is performance art at its best.

[iemitsu]

159. Excellent piece Mr Pitt.

You mirror my sentiments, and one would think any honest American's, exactly.

Until we cleanse ourselves of the stain, left by the torture programs, we have no moral authority, no standing on which to criticize or chastise any other nation for anything.
We want to have influence when the Crimea is in dispute and we want a voice when Israel wages war but that voice is increasingly lost in the wind.
For those Americans, who want a strong president/nation, the only way that we can ever have that again is via war crimes trials for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al.
Obama could have had that strong voice and given America back some of its lost authority. The nation and the world were willing and waiting for his leadership.
I agree with you that Obama's Presidency is over.
After Friday's news dump, Obama can join Clinton as another of the favored, adopted, sons of G H W Bush.

[merrily]

163. Sometimes, DUers play as though torture began and ended during the Bush administration, and

sometimes, we acknowledge that it began before Bush and did not end when Bush left office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5348338

When we acknowledge that torture began before Bush and did not end when Bush left office, then the reasons for not prosecuting become a lot more obvious, don't they?

Also, as another poster pointed out upthread, Democrats on the intelligence committee knew what was going on but took an oath of secrecy (which is either illegal or should be).

As far as having lied us into war, the Democrats who voted for that war (and for the Patriot Act) had better information than did the general public.

[Maedhros]

249. Keep in mind that CIA black sites have continued to operate under Obama.

http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia

[merrily]

343. Yes, thank you. Amnesty International raised that, too.

[albino65]

170. How the hell do I still receive your bullshit

I have hidden you multiple times. Your post is an affront to my nose.

[WilliamPitt]

178. Karma.

[Rex]

179. ...

[Autumn]

211. You are obviously doing it wrong. Post in ATA and the admins can teach you how to use ignore.

It's really easy. One click is all it takes. If that's too hard maybe they can make it easier for you.

[albino65]

236. been there, done that

bite me

[Autumn]

261. Gonna pass on that

I'm shocked you got all offended. One click. So simple a child can do it.

[derby378]

215. Or, in other words, "I wish I knew how to quit you"

[deerheadgal]

251. Agreed!

I keep trying to hide you and your sycophants but here you are. Go away!

[countryjake]

174. Thanks for another great essay, Will.

signed...just another "sanctimonious" objector, I guess.

I prefer righteously outraged, but if he deigns to label those of us who cling to the tatters of what's left of the moral fiber of our nation in such a disparaging way, then I do (and I will continue to) wear my conscience like a pendant, for all to see! A clarion call to those who care.

[wiggs]

193. I'm fine with lots of different reactions getting out there for people to

think about, so thanks Will. I'm fine with both the outrage and with those who think that the admission of torture is a significant step...helps us think about our personal positions...my personal thought is that the current lack of prison sentences for those who participated in torture programs ten years ago can't be chalked up to the supposed moral failings of one person.

I don't believe the President is uniquely and solely responsible for how our country responds to what happened since 9/11 wrt torture (and I, for one, believe that we engaged in torture much more extensively than just waterboarding three guys...I think the torture story is much bigger than we've heard). In some unfortunate but real ways, I'm sure Obama's position as acting president is more complex than a quick analysis and blanket condemnation would suggest. After all, Obama is nothing if not thoughtful and considered...I assume he's looked at this issue the same way he approaches most other issues....with great care, listening to all points of view, looking at the big picture, looking at long term consequences. I highly doubt he's allowing some sort of moral bankruptcy drive his decision on this.

...Has he asked Justice if there's a solid case or not?

...Who else aside from the president can call for or initiate legal action? Can't Justice Dept move on their own? Can't someone affected by the torture program bring a suit or file a legal complaint? Apparently Congress could file suit if it wanted...and certainly Congress could be at least calling for legal action too if it were inclined.

...Has he asked Congress to consider working with Justice Dept (a la Watergate) to determine if there's a worthy pathway?

...What have his advisers told him about how much a long, ugly, unprecedented trial of past elected and appointed officials would help or hurt USA image around the world and in particular with those who are already pissed off at us? You can't say with black and white certainty that such action would ONLY help and there would be no downside...so what are relative weights of the pros and cons that a world leader has to consider? It's a big deal.

...Does such an action belong in US courts or in world courts or in the UN?

...How much weight can the head of the democratic party give to this kind of action? People talk about how much an ugly Obama impeachment would benefit the democrats...so how much would an ugly criminal trial of past elected officials benefit the republicans?

...What are the numerous short and long term effects of the Justice Department going after the CIA, an arm of the government? What are the structural ramifications?

...Aside from public, ugly legal action initiated by POTUS, are there other ways to right the ship and address moral issues at the same time as addressing domestic, political, diplomatic, and geopolitical issues? Have any of these steps been taken even though outside the view of CNN and the NYT? Just because we don't see Cheney in handcuffs doesn't mean that there isn't a ton going on behind the scenes.

I ask these questions not to defend torturers but to state the obvious: that a president's job is not the same as a journalist's job and that there are many, many factors and long games and favors and dynamics and pending bills and foreign relationships and other parts of government to consider.

[Demit]

212. I like your phrase 'Obama's position as acting president.'

Was that deliberate?

It's not hard to imagine that our Chief Executive has an invisible Board of Directors he's answering to, directing him to get out in front of this torture thing & nip it in the bud. I can picture some shadowy figure adding, And, not that it's really necessary, but make sure you send a demoralizing message to your base. Call them holier-than-thou or something.

[Maedhros]

254. It's as if he's going out of the way to avoid offending pro-torture people.

I find that baffling and very offensive.

[blkmusclmachine]

194. Obama's soft peddling on torture reveals who Obama is. No more campaign lies to get in his way,

Obama's mask comes off. And no blaming Republicans or phony "bi-partisanship," either. Nice, huh?!!!

[Joe Bacon]

360. Depressing but true.

He always takes care of his pals on Wall Street.

[Marrah_G]

195. I agree

[GeorgeGist]

198. My first time ...

Declaring the Gulf of Mexico open for business, President Barack Obama took a dip in its waters Saturday with his daughter, Sasha. Like his border security bill signing a day earlier, the presidential swim at Alligator Point in Panama City Beach, Florida, was not open to members of the media.

The presidential “vacation” was scheduled after Obama faced criticism for not following his own advice to Americans urging them to vacation on the Gulf Coast. Of course Obama’s visit – scheduled to last a mere 27 hours – was more about public relations than a family vacation, as the Obamas’ extended family break will take place later this month in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.

Obama’s administration has faced considerable criticism for its handling of the British Petroleum oil spill – which dumped 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the gulf over a three-month period prior to being capped in mid-July. The spill – the largest in American history – started shortly after an April 20 explosion destroyed an oil rig leased to BP.

Some estimates put the tab for the disaster at nearly $40 billion.


Read more at http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/08/14/obama-swims-in-gulf/#4BXqhhhElAxXdZ5H.99

Everyone knew it was phony ... but he didn't care ... and he used his daughter.

[ancianita]

199. Our power will never help us live this down.

[xocet]

203. Excellent piece. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

207. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WilliamPitt.

[malokvale77]

217. Kick 'n' Rec

Thank you so much for this.

[kentuck]

218. Lest we forget...

There were Democrats that knew about the torture also. But there really is no reason to excuse what went on with the previous administration. It may be "common courtesy" to overlook the sins of the previous administration and "look forward" but, it is a war crime. It went against everything that was agreed to at the Geneva Convention. Being the United States of America, a superpower, does not change the nature of the war crime. We can sweep it under the rug and forget about it and the world would not press the issue. Is that what we want?

[JaneyVee]

222. Just in time for November elections!

Keep the nihilism coming!

[Akira Watts]

227. It's not nihilism

It's not as if there is some magic finish line, after which attaining, Obama will suddenly transform into a progressive messiah. After the November elections, he'll keep doing the same thing, and the excuse will be shifted to the 2016 elections. He is who he is. And, as Friday's speech clearly shows, one part of who he is is an apologist for torturers. Pointing that out isn't nihilism; it's realism. And, last time I looked, rose colored glasses didn't do much to win elections either.

[JaneyVee]

233. Oh, it's nihilism.

Will is free to point it out just like I'm free to point out the nihilism that has permeated DU. There are 2 types of liberals, those who want to build on past progress, and those who want to tear it all down and start over. Both have the same end goal: Utopia.

[Akira Watts]

234. Tear it down

Well sign me up for the latter camp. This neoliberalism that Obama peddles with soaring rhetoric doesn't work. It didn't much work under Clinton, either, save for the fact that our economy was in better shape and the country could pretend to occupy of moral high ground in international affairs.

It's not nihilism to say this isn't working. Nor is it nihilism to call Obama a crushing disappointment (he's also one of the better presidents of the past hundred years, but that's a low bar - if there's one thing America is good at, it's ejecting godawful presidents). There's fuck all in terms of past progress to build on, given how thoroughly this pathological neoliberal impulse to compromise with imbeciles has torn things down.

Burn it all to the ground and start again.

[JaneyVee]

248. I'm in the other camp.

Sometimes progress is measured one inch at a time. In nearly every economic and social indicator Obama has advanced American progress from the America he inherited. You say rose colored glasses don't win elections, I'm here to tell you neither does nihilism and cynicism.

My personal philosophy is anchored in optimism. Optimism gives me reason to keep fighting for a better tomorrow. If you're looking for a president to be a progressive messiah perhaps you should stop looking for humans to be messiah's. I'm not being snarky, what I'm trying to say is perhaps we don't have progressive messiah's is because everyone keeps looking for progressive messiah's. Pres.Obama also said "WE are the ones we've been waiting for".

While everyone else is obsessing over the word "folks", I applaud him for saying the word "torture". Should Bush and Cheney be put on trial? A resounding yes. Should Obama be crucified by the left for not doing so (even though he never mentioned he would)? A resounding no.

The Bush/Cheney legacy will forever be known as a dark, blood soaked stain in American history. Obama's legacy will be one of reversing course of nearly every one of those dark, blood soaked stains. And the word "folks" will never be uttered again.

[Akira Watts]

253. Messiahs

I'm not looking for one either. I didn't expect it from Obama, and I don't expect it from anyone else. I think we are very close to being in agreement. Change comes from us, not from our leaders. Our difference is that I don't think what we currently have is a foundation worth building on.

And yes, the fact that Obama said "torture" was neat. And I never expected prosecutions. But the finger shaking admonition not to be sanctimonious? Because the torturers were good patriots? And under stress? Nope. Not having that. Making excuses for torture doesn't make you the moral equivalent of a torturer, but it still makes you a morally shitty human being.

[woo me with science]

287. +1000000 A revolting spectacle from an American president

and a chilling confirmation that the rot and corruption and amorality/immorality in our government extend all the way to the ostensible "top."

[NYC Liberal]

228. Kick & unrec.

[WillyT]

232. K & R !!!

[BKH70041]

235. The popcorn threads are the best.

Excellent!!



And you're welcome for the kick.

[whereisjustice]

237. Mr. Obama's torturing us with his logic defending torture. There isn't enough alcohol

in this world to flush that shit out of our consciousness.

[SammyWinstonJack]

244. rec!

[woo me with science]

245. Thank you Will,

for this forceful statement on behalf of the morally intact in our nation.

I am very grateful for your words.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

250. They tortured children in front of their parents to get their parents to talk.

[elias49]

256. K&R

Sad truth can be painful.

[WinkyDink]

260. Prosecuting torturers is off the table. Or, to put it the proper way, prosecuting the 1% is off the

table.

What is ON the table are tortured men and boys who were the fortunate sons to be given the gift of American democracy.

[certainot]

262. sanctimonious is right. or ignorance.

Why is the president bending over backwards for what is demonstrably a CIA that has gone dangerously rogue?

it went rouge a long time ago, allowing in and assisting in teh assasinations of politicians like kennedy and wellstone and 13 year old nuclear PR nightmares like samantha smith. and if you expect a black man to march into the White Billionaire's Hose and kick CIA ass you are either being naive or sanctimonious.

what makes it moreso is the fact that so many on the left, bright and brilliant and talented, have not only had no fucking clue what's been kicking their ass for the last 25 years, but never figure it into their evaluations and strategy.

the right dominates messaging in this country and does it with talk radio. and considering the time lost on global warming the biggest mistake in political history is giving that monopoly a free speech free ride.

we let them get away with stealing elections and we want one guy and his family to handle what million s in the streets couldn't do- he did 'end' the iraq war - BUT THE LEFT CANNOT BY ANY STRETCH SAY IT HAS HIS BACK as long as it continues to ignore the right's best weapon.

[bobduca]

267. A Sanctimonious K&R

[emsimon33]

273. Well said

[mythology]

274. Out of curiosity

would you have supported trying FDR for sending Japanese-Americans to internment camps?

You get annoyed with Obama using the word sanctimonious. But he's not wrong. There is a hell of a lot of evidence that most people would absolutely be willing to inflict harm on others under dubious circumstances. The Milgram experiment, the Stanford Prison and many others demonstrate conclusively that the majority of people will in fact complete an action that, by all outside logic, is committing harm to others.

I understand that most people want to believe that they couldn't possibly be corrupted. But frankly that's generally a load of self-serving bullshit in my experience usually made by people who have never been really tested on that front. It's not simply sanctimonious, it's hubris, and particularly in your case (for reasons that should be obvious), it shows an appalling lack of self-awareness about how little it takes to push somebody towards using violence, or the threat thereof, to get what they want.

[woo me with science]

313. What a slimy and despicable tactic of apologism,

to try to invoke Milgram's experiments as a defense of the president's comments. To try to pretend that his comments were abstract commentary on moral decision-making, instead of what they actually were:

commentary on torture that was *actually* carried out, on *actual* men and children, as *deliberate* policy of the government of the United States of America.

Commentary from an American president that labeled the perpetrators of the torture "patriots" and critics of the torture, "sanctimonious."

It takes a remarkable level of Orwellian gall to reference the Milgram experiments as justification for a world leader to excuse (and, by use of the word "Patriot," even to elevate...) torture by his own government. If anything, the Milgram experiments on the effects of perceived authority on moral decision-making should drive home to anyone with a barely functioning moral compass how important it is NOT to tolerate deliberate, carefully scripted, after-the-fact apologism for evil from those we elect as representatives of our democratic, moral values and principles.

These persistent, manipulative attempts to shame those who still hold our country and our president to the basic moral principles of this nation speak for themselves...in a very ugly way.

[WilliamPitt]

347. "...how little it takes to push somebody towards using violence..."

So let me get this straight.

You're arguing for the use of violence by discussing my alleged lack of self-awareness about what it takes to push someone into committing violence?

Go. Back. To. Bed.

[Enthusiast]

285. Kicked and recommended!

[Ed Suspicious]

286. Do be sanctimonious. Look down your noses with a mix of disdain and pity at those so lacking in

a core sense of humanity. Sneer at those so maladapted to the human race, so devoid of empathy that they would torture someone's son or daughter. It is tortured logic that the feelings of powerful people who plan, implement, or tacitly approve of torture should be given any consideration, especially consideration over the victims of torture.

[woo me with science]

290. ...

They need to be shamed.

[Hotler]

293. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!.......

[MissDeeds]

294. Well said

Obama the president is the antithesis of Obama the candidate. What he spoke out against during the campaigns, he embraced once he was in office.

K&R

[Politicub]

295. Life in the short-timers bubble

You must not pay close attention to news analysis or second day stories. But this news wasn't "buried." It got picked up widely.

It was a catalyst for the NY Times to start using the word torture, as one example. This probably doesn't seem a significant thing to most. But when history is written and primary sources are mined, this will represent a turning point.

Perhaps this isn't playing out as you want. If you lift your head above water you will understand this isn't a point in time, one and done thing.

No matter what language was used, the news is reverberating. A seed was planted and it will grow.

Look back on seemingly small statements that took time to grow. The approach by the Obama admin to gay rights seemed slow, and I was tired of waiting. But the way it was handled is masterful. The seed was planted during the second inaugural. And it grew, watered by so many other acts -large and small - by LGBT people and our allies. Look around you. See how far gay liberation has come. It wasn't just Obama, but he sure played an instrumental part.

Do you see a pattern? If not, you need to pay more attention.

[6000eliot]

308. Horse shit.

[blackspade]

311. I agree, disgusting.

This makes him an accomplice to a war crime.

[NanceGreggs]

337. What Obama actually said was ...

“… 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.”

If Obama wanted to specifically include torturers among the “real patriots”, why didn’t he just say “all of those folks”. By saying “a lot” of instead of “all”, he is obviously excluding certain people from those he was categorizing as patriots. Could it be he was excluding the torturers?

But no, that wouldn’t fit your agenda. Instead we should assume that he was calling torturers “real patriots” – not because that’s what he actually said, but because that’s what you want to think he said. And I’ve no doubt you knew that your DU audience, now that the site is rife with anti-Obamans, would waste no time taking your “interpretation” of what was said as being more factual than the actual words Obama stated – and would rec your thread accordingly.

“And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect …”

Your “interpretation”: “That line was directed at people like me, and maybe you, and everyone who stood up and shouted from the rafters that torture is wrong, that torture is evil, and the people who did it need to be punished if the United States has even a whiff of a prayer of recovering its morality after so long and cruel and despicable a practice. The torturers are the "real patriots" here, you see, and those of us who stood against them - and will ever do so - are only being "sanctimonious" in our outrage.”

Yes, Will. When Obama says “us” what he really means is people who are against torture and want to see torturers prosecuted. When he says that we should not “feel too sanctimonious” he’s calling everyone who is anti-torture “sanctimonious in their outrage”. But given what I see on DU on a daily basis, it’s easy to understand why twisting words like that is accepted as the norm. It’s just like when a poster says, “I don’t think you have your facts straight,” and the response is, “Stop calling me a fuckin’ idiot!”

“Friday in a news dump that no one, apparently, was expected to pay any attention to.”

Seriously? You believed that Obama publicly stating that Americans “tortured” was not going to get any traction because it was delivered on a Friday? What’s more, did you really believe that Obama, or anyone in his administration, thought that his remarks would go unnoticed, glossed over, not given any attention? Come on, Will – you’re smarter than that – and so is Obama.

“Over the intervening days, a great many people have taken a long, slow burn on remarks made by the president regarding America's use of torture …”

The reason it was a long, slow burn is due to the fact that the shit-pot needed stirring. People such as yourself needed time to rally the anti-Obamans with poutrage about the use of the word “folks”, by “interpreting” Obama’s plain English statements as having meanings never stated or even implied, by trying to convince people that Obama had called torturers “real patriots”, and had called anti-torture advocates “sanctimonious”.

And what better place to stir that shit-pot than DU, where you have an audience more than anxious to be delivered yet another outrage-de-jour to set their hair on fire over?

As is obvious to anyone who even casually reads what is posted here, OPs about anything positive done by this President usually sink like a stone, while OPs calling him a “piece of shit used car salesman” garner praise, recs, and views.

So I’ll give you credit for one thing, Will. You are smart enough to know which side of the DU bread is the buttered side.

[WilliamPitt]

338. I used to have an enormous amount of respect for you.

And then I saw your reply in a thread two days ago in which a DUer pleaded to other DUers not to rationalize torture...and you did exactly that. Here you are, doing it again.

You were against torture during the Bush administration. I read every word you wrote.

Now, you're tying yourself in knots to justify it, by defending the guy who just tried to justify it and excuse it and dismiss it, by deploying strawmen about my "need" to stoke "outrage" to "my audience."

Ad hominem bullshit.

The NanceGreggs I knew ten years ago would be ashamed of the NanceGreggs before me today.

And the really, really, really shitty part?

You know it, too. At least I really hope so. I understand to-the-knife defense of things we believe deeply in.

But the person and writer and advocate you were would be ashamed of you today, and I think you know it.

All too well.

Farewell, old friend. I once respected you.

[NanceGreggs]

340. In my post on the thread you're referring to ...

... I said:

"Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it. Whether it is the result of some altruistic motive or simple sadism, the fact remains that it is wrong.

If you torture a fellow human being, your reasons for doing so can never negate the fact that you have done something reprehensible. In those circumstances, no "reason" can ever be held out as an "excuse".

But of course - DU being what it is these days - those comments were immediately taken as a "rationalization of torture". But that's typical DU fare these days - a statement that "torture is never justified" gets translated into "excusing torture". The mind boggles.

My position on the use of torture has never changed - and my recent statement that it is never justified is in keeping with that long-held position. But DU has come to the point where what anyone says in plain English is to be "interpreted" as meaning the exact opposite, depending on who said it.

The die was cast the night you slammed Obama's SOTU speech as being an attempt to glorify war by inviting a visibly disabled and disfigured soldier to be in attendance. (Because common sense dictates that if you want to glorify war, the best way to do so is to NOT invite a handsome, unscathed military man to the SOTU, but instead invite someone whose very appearance demonstrates the cost of war in no uncertain terms.)

That OP garnered recs galore, and thousands of views. And you haven't laid off the anti-Obama
OPs since. Even your own failure to investigate medical insurance policies to ensure that your wife's medications were covered was "all Obama's fault", instead of your own.

As I said, you came to know which side of the DU bread is the buttered side - and you have been playing to the "buttered side" ever since. You now know that any OP that even remotely acknowledges anything positive about Obama or his administration will die a quick death, instead of generating click-throughs to Truthout. You know that the Obama supporters on DU are a minority as compared to the anti-Obaman majority - and you have chosen to appeal to the majority, where the "recs and click-throughs" can be counted on.

"Farewell, old friend. I once respected you." You "respected me" when I agreed with you. You no longer "respect" me - or anyone else - who doesn't agree with you. That much is obvious - and the fact that you think it isn't obvious speaks for itself.

[WilliamPitt]

341. Find a mirror.

[woo me with science]

345. kick

[BelgianMadCow]

346. Happy 200th. n/t

[woo me with science]

349. kick

[spanone]

350. a sad k&r...

[akbacchus_BC]

363. You need to give President Obama a bit more leverage!

What you want him to do? He cannot fix America, America cannot be fixed. The Rethugs only wanted to get him out and they tried everything to undermine him even when he tried to work with them! Some people would say he was naive to reach out to the rethugs but he did say, he is for all Americans!

Best President ever in my humble opinion. How many executive orders can he sign?

You are smart Will Pitt, this President did his best but got blockaded every which way, including closing Guantamano Bay.