Forgive me if I roll my eyes at your precious outrage about torture.

[True Blue Door]

My anger about this has been a long-smoldering thing, from the moment I could see from the attitude and language of the Bush regime after 9/11 that the "War on Terror" was a 2-front war with the Republican Party being one of the two implacable enemies this country faced. That came into perfect focus with the Iraq War propaganda/ domestic terror campaign, but had been a long time coming - Bush and his kind made no secret of their intentions. Watching those events unfold, the Big Lies and horrific atrocities under the flag and in the institutions of the United States was like watching a bunch of spiders be born from the corpse of your own mother.

While this was happening, what were we doing? What was anyone doing? We acted as if expressing our opinions was an act of courage, thus excusing the complete lack of follow-through on any of it. We held no one accountable, least of all ourselves. Maybe if the GOP had lived up to their constant threats to start rounding up political prisoners and crushing those who spoke against them, we would have done something. But they didn't really have to, did they: We didn't stand in their way at all. There was always some excuse, some ego-salvaging rationalization for why it was impossible, or why America was a conservative country and didn't deserve our sacred interference in its supposedly chosen course of destruction.

And the cycle repeats every time the subject comes up again: Always someone has to bash America to excuse their own refusal to sacrifice anything to change it, like a negligent parent who degrades their children as worthless to excuse never doing anything for them. Always it's someone else's fault that you've spent 95% of the last decade of political activism talking about other issues, and treat this one as if it were just like any other - torture and net neutrality, what's the difference? I'm angry when I think about torture, and angry when I think about cable companies screwing me out of my money, so I guess I'll just split the difference. Oh, but then there's fracking, and that makes me angry too. Say, what's the new flavor special at The Coffee Bean tonight? Wait, what was I talking about? Oh yeah, I was talking about how much Obama really failed us when it comes to alpaca breeding regulations.

It's the media's fault for not supplementing your attention span with consistent coverage; politicians' fault for caring as little in principle as you do in practice; it's Obama's fault for not doing whatever hare-brained scheme you think is in a President's legal or even practical power because you were asleep the day they talked about that in Civics; it's Democratic Senators and Congressmen's fault that you failed to sustain their legislative majorities, meaning that we've been denied reports like this from the House since 2011, and will get no more whatsoever when the GOP takes the Senate in 2015.

And since we never do anything about any of it, we have to act perpetually shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling in this establishment! Every time the issue comes up, we pretend to have not known before. Either this is a case of Memento-like anterograde mass-amnesia, or a lot of people just have to rationalize to themselves why they never do anything about it.

I know why I don't do anything about it: Because I don't trust the rest of you to help me (or myself to help you, for that matter). And that's why politicians won't do anything about it either. Because you'll forget about the subject five minutes from now, along with both the contributions and disgraces of political figures. Every liberal who truly dedicates themselves to anything is constantly betrayed by your shallowness, and then you ask in surreal bafflement why these issues fail to advance.

But no one who's actually in government has this problem - they don't forget their friends and enemies. The CIA doesn't, the Pentagon doesn't, the GOP doesn't, and even the Democratic Party leadership doesn't, which is why they ignore you - because you are deliberately inconsequential. Because being consequential is too much responsibility. So many of them seem to pal around with Republicans because a consistent enemy is easier to work with than a fickle friend with amnesia obsessed with fault-finding in everyone who tries to serve them.

The contractors who profit from crimes like these don't forget their friends or their enemies. Nor do the Middle Eastern authoritarian states complicit in these crimes, the "allies" who participated or enabled them, or the bureaucratic trolls burrowed into federal and international institutions from the Bush regime. None of these people forget, but you do. They reward their friends, you punish your friends with moving goalposts and selective amnesia. They punish enemies, you reward your enemies with feeble opposition that makes them look strong and lets them claim you are not a viable alternative to them.

This is what you do - what we do. We grow our own villains like garden vegetables, and then take a big bite to savor the taste of outrage. Because just being rational and responsible enough to simply defeat them wouldn't be fun enough, we have to die on the cross every six months in our own imaginations.

Talk about your plans to obtain justice. Talk about ideas that might work where others have failed. Talk about how you intend to mobilize the amoral and corrupt to achieve this, because nothing ever happens unless they find it advantageous. But if you plan to belittle the American people, the President, or Democrats, or piss and moan about fate, save it for the Rand Paul rally. And if you just want to talk about how shocked and angry you are that the Bush regime was evil, email those sentiments to yourself in 2001-2005 when they might have mattered and just focus now on the practicalities of achieving justice in a meaningful timeframe.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. K! & R!!! Preach it! nt

[Vattel]

2. So what should we do?

[Demit]

3. As best I can figure, we have to plow under the soil we are growing

our own villains in, because we have about six months before we die on the cross of our imaginations. We certainly don't want to watch a bunch of spiders be born from the corpse of somebody's mother again.

[dogknob]

5. I think we should just repeat any metaphors the OP used in a mocking and snarky fashion n/t

[Demit]

15. It saves the rolling of eyes at precious outrage.

[roguevalley]

49. this reminds me of my brother. he was always the first and the

most. first to have mumps, first to have them the worst. I am so glad someone was more outraged than me first. It really relieves me of performance anxiety.

This was kind of outstanding: "I know why I don't do anything about it: Because I don't trust the rest of you to help me (or myself to help you, for that matter)."

Trust issues kept you from saving us. How about just doing what you think is right without looking for anyone else. How about starting your own parade. It might mean you are standing by yourself but then you can always be proud that you did something instead of projecting your own impotence onto everyone else. Truly, be your own parade.

As for us being the reason you didn't end the war and torture and the rest, don't blame us. I remember standing in the snow at -10 with the handful of protestors in my little red neck town getting the finger from the odd car going by. That's what I did. Did it end the war? End torture? No. But it made me feel better. And I don't blame anyone else that I failed. At least I started.

EDIT: I re-read your last paragraph and feel your frustration. I also think you are aiming this at the huddled masses and MAYBE not directly at us. Fine. I can understand that. I am old enough to remember when this was America, not Amerikkka. However, you are still responsible for your own silence and inaction. We all know what that means too. It is only for good people to be silent (inactive) for evil to triumph.

[whathehell]

179. I concur!

[Aerows]

232. Where can I send your internets?

Because you've won them today with this post.

[True Blue Door]

10. My opinion, which I'm not the type to pretend is some kind of divine revelation...

Is that we have to find a way to make war crimes prosecutions politically advantageous to amoral types who would just as soon have the criminals as their allies.

That's an extremely tall order, but it's the exact height of the problem.

[Vattel]

16. I have a good idea, but it is off the politcal radar right now.

Obama gave us an executive order which is the weakest response possible. He or the next president can rescind it at any time. If he or Congress were really serious about reducing the likelihood of future torture and assuring the world that we have changed our ways, we should amend the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act to make practices like waterboarding unambiguously criminal under those criminal statutes. Both of those acts are well-intentioned but they are horrible pieces of legislation. Due to their ambiguity, John Yoo and others in the Bush DOJ were able to argue that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques did not violate them. I don't buy Yoo's arguments, but it would be better to make the statutes unambiguous than to argue subtle points of interpretation with the likes of Yoo. Strong criminal prohibitions would not stop extremists about presidential war powers from arguing that the President is above the law on matters of national security, but they would be a much greater obstacle to torture than an executive order.

[True Blue Door]

21. We can't do that without control of Congress

and we've pissed away two opportunities to continue or regain it. We've also done nothing about the fact that five of the nine Supreme Court Justices are lawless fascist revolutionaries who would declare up to be down and a Cadillac to be a jar of marmalade if it suited partisan Republican Party interests.

So add that to the list of necessities to achieve justice for Bush's war crimes: We need a Supreme Court where five of the nine wouldn't just vacate a conviction "because" and make up some absurd legal doctrine to preclude any future prosecution of Republicans for anything ever.

[easychoice]

65. I love the way

those old robed pricks vacate common sense at the drop of a hat.Shit like appointing shrub head fuck up was absurd but they got away with it.

[Vattel]

68. Obama could have easily done it in 2009.

[True Blue Door]

87. No, he couldn't - Presidents can't prosecute people.

How many times do I have to tell you people that political interference in the Justice Department by the White House is an impeachable offense? Pursuing impeachable offenses by the last occupants of the Oval Office is not an excuse for committing them now.

Eric Holder could indeed have pursued prosecution in 2009, but you know damn well not "easily." The entire GOP and a goodly portion of Democratic leaders would have fought tooth-and-nail, withholding funds, launching counter-investigations into the DOJ, and the entire media would have spewed 24/7 violent fascist propaganda calling for civil war and acts of terrorism, which undoubtedly would have happened. Whatever you wanted, most Obama voters didn't sign up for that kind of chaos and confrontation.

Not one single piece of legislation passed by this administration 2009-2010 would have passed in that kind of political climate. And you make abundantly clear that you would have probably blamed Obama for that too. If Holder were prosecuting at the time, and the result was political deadlock two years early, you would have ignored that he was doing what you wanted and just focused on some other irritant.

The only way to manage war crimes prosecutions is to politically isolate the targets first, and your - frankly - lies trying to mindfuck people into seeing the Obama administration as complicit in Bush's crimes isn't helping.

[YoungDemCA]

88. +1. It would have been a disaster...

[merrily]

113. Forgive me if I roll my eyes at your implication that Obama and Holder operate totally independently

of each other.

I heard that for years, while the D of J was filing briefs equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. Then, Obama decides to stop defending DOMA in certain circuits and takes full credit for giving that marching order to Holder. And the very same people who had been claiming Obama could do nothing about Holder cheered Obama for directing Holder to stop the defense of DOMA.

At the very least, Obama can fire Holder and replace him if he doesn't like the job Holder is doing, just as he's done with cabinet members.

So, please spare us the fictional strict separation of the Chief Executive from the Executive Branch.

[True Blue Door]

122. (sigh) Here's the full picture.

Nothing stops a President from saying "I want the Justice Department to do this."

Nothing stops an Attorney General from saying "The President has...and thus I....do this."

But actions have consequences.

Congress has the vaguely-delineated authority to impeach Presidents for abuse of power.

If anyone tried to impeach Obama for influencing the Justice Department's DOMA decision, they'd be laughed out of Washington.

But if Barack Obama told the Justice Department to prosecute key figures of his own political opposition - if he even appeared to be hinting that it should happen and it did - he would be impeached and convicted, because the full weight of the Pentagon and all of its political relationships, the CIA and all of its political relationships, all the contractors who might be held liable in civil court, everyone with anything to lose whatsoever would come down against him.

Supporters would be disorganized and picked off one by one with bribes and threats, both as extravagant as necessary. The media would straight-up lie about what was happening, and more than half the American people would probably believe he was being impeached for trying to launch some kind of dictatorial coup.

And that's for just rhetorically pushing it. Actually firing an Attorney General for failing to prosecute would be such a nakedly Nixonian politicization of the Justice Department, that some the douchier cornball progressives would probably support impeachment on principle.

You clearly haven't thought this through.

I've said elsewhere and I'll say again: The key to war crimes prosecution is to first politically isolate the highest-priority targets.

That's extremely difficult because the Bush family's influence is global, and has a personal network in the CIA through Bush Sr's relationships (he was a former DCI).

[merrily]

130. Yes, we're familiar with all the rationalizations.

As for Nixon, he fired several in a row. Obama would not need to do that and would not even need to fire one. If he had asked Holder for his resignation, he'd get it.

You clearly haven't thought this through.

That kind of arrogant response is all too typical, just like your uber condescending sigh.

No one sees or knows it or realizes anything, except Obama's staunchest defenders and rationalization machines, the ones who will allow no criticism whatsoever, express or implied.




In reality, I have thought it through as much as anyone, if not more. I just don't buy all the theoretical bullshit about the huge wall between Holder and the guy who hired him. I've seen the reality in action and I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

The way some posters here go on how about the extreme powerless of the most powerful man in the world is laughable. That is what is clear. We're beyond over it.

[True Blue Door]

154. And I'm familiar with all the rationalizations for why your inability to get what you want

is the result of everyone else on Earth being unworthy of you.

Moreover, the fact stands that Obama would be impeached and convicted - with some appearance of justification - if he tried to force the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. The fact that those enemies are in fact treasonous criminals means that the Justice Department should prosecute them with the President staying miles clear of anything even rhyming with the subject. Holder doesn't appear likely to do that, so what is your solution?

Explain your genius plan to make a US Attorney or federal judge nominated to be Attorney General to replace Holder perjure themselves before the Senate Judiciary Committee when asked if they're going to pursue these war crimes. Or, barring that, give us a diagram of the political gymnastics whereby they could admit to it and still be confirmed. Do they have an emoji for it?

If only that darn Obama would hurry up and nominate you to be Attorney General, this problem would be solved in a jiffy. There's no way those silly old farts in the Senate could resist your unstoppable will and god-like cunning. Politics, ha! I could do that! Look, ma, no hands!

[merrily]

155. Wow, that was a huge load of crap to pull straight out of your ear! Feel better?

Bears no resemblance to anything I've ever posted, though.

[True Blue Door]

158. If I've misinterpreted your position, feel free to correct me.

[merrily]

159. You have; I am and it's not worth the candle. Clearly, your OP was not about honest discourse.

No matter what I say, you will lump me with your ugly little stereotype of an Obama critic--and I could care less. Not worth the bandwidth.

[Aerows]

138. Thank you for stating it plainly!

It's either the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, which is bad enough, or neither of them are competent enough to communicate.

Which is horse shit. I was born at night, but not last night.

[merrily]

142. You're most welcome. My posts a couple of years ago were nothing like they are now.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

I used to engage seriously, as if everyone here were actually interested in discussions and exchanges of ideas, trying to take the high road by simply ignoring all the ad homs, express implied. I'd make painstaking posts, peppered with links to factual info. Finally, I caught on. None of it was about exchanging ideas or a quest for truth. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

And, once you catch on, you can't unring the bell, even if you wanted to.

Few, if any here, buy any of it anymore. Not the insults, not the sensible woodchuckism, none of it. Maybe they can sell it on ebay.

I was born at night, but not last night.

LOL! I was actually deciding between that and the turnip truck. Now, they're both on the board. Thanks!

[Aerows]

144. For what it's worth

not everyone, not even the majority of DU are the glad-handing sensible woodchucks. The problem is that they are so prolific (since it is their job) it tends to drown out the regular people that stop by to post and participate.

I know what you mean by how tiring it is to fight them, but the truth is, you are better off just putting them on ignore. I think everyone on DU knows who the political operatives are; we aren't stupid.

Ignore them, and continue to participate, my friend. I know I will and no one will drown out my voice unless I let them - that goes for you, too!

[merrily]

145. Thanks. No, DUers as a whole aren't stupid, but I sure was clueless.

Even though I'd see posts here and there exposing it, I thought maybe three or four posters were involved and the rest were sincere and just not well informed or not just seeing it.

Since I started posting, so many good posters have disappeared, voluntarily or not. A favorite waved goodbye to me within the last couple of months and I get angry just thinking about that. I loved his posts and the way his mind worked. Learned so much from him and others who are gone. Learn nothing from "the swarm."

[whathehell]

180. "You people"?

[True Blue Door]

182. "People who pretend the President can order prosecutions" is a bit of a keyboardful.

[whathehell]

187. I'm sure you're brilliance will enable your search for alternatives.

"unfortunately, I do have that problem".

Would that 'problem' be unmitigated gall, aka, noxious arrogance?

Fear not, True, you'll find no shortage of DUers willing to 'help' you with your

problem.

[Vattel]

215. Damn, who said anything about prosecution?

He could have easily passed legislation amending the torture act and the war crimes act. Try reading.

[True Blue Door]

216. Really? You polled Congress at the time about support for such measures?

[Vattel]

222. Opposing such legislation at that time would have been politically crazy for a Democrat,

and I suspect some anti-torture Republicans would have gone along with it too. But even if I am wrong about that, it is noteworthy that no one even tried to pass such legislation. That is sad.

[True Blue Door]

223. So no one even tried to pass it, but you're certain it would have passed?

How does that logic work?

[Vattel]

271. I am not certain that it would have passed.

That's why I said "Even if I am wrong about that." You really do have some reading comprehension issues.

[Aerows]

234. " I'm not the type to pretend is some kind of divine revelation..."

[True Blue Door]

236. Ooo, emoji spam. You're a sharp one.

[Aerows]

240. Is that what they are calling emoticons these days?

At least I'm not trying to cudgel everybody in the thread with the blunt end of false awareness and over-inflated ego.

You've got the over-inflated ego award locked up.

[True Blue Door]

258. The torture victims appreciate your steadfast attention to seeking justice for them.

Keep up that laser-like focus. Eyes on the prize, man. Eyes on the prize.

[Aerows]

260. That was an interesting segue.

?

[True Blue Door]

264. Yes, I quite randomly and bizarrely brought up the subject of the OP

in a rude interruption of your highly important nonsense digressions and personal attacks.

[Aerows]

276. It's rather rich that you bring up

the subject of "highly important nonsense" and "personal attacks".

Proceed, sir.

[sulphurdunn]

246. The people have always

demanded concessions from the ruling elites. They are in the streets today, doing the same thing they've done for at least the last 150 years. Sometimes it works. Most of the time it doesn't. It most certainly hasn't worked for the last 40 years. Regardless, the status quo never really changes much. The drift is always toward monied plutocrats and oligarchy.

The time has come, I believe, not to demand further concessions from the ruling elite, but rather to replace them and the oligarchy they operate with a new system. Now, how the hell do we do that?

[Dustlawyer]

248. I have a suggestion!

I agree with the OP. I have tried myself to convince people here at DU to attack the root problem that causes most of our problems, including this one, torture. I even set up dates to mobilize protests, asked people here to help spread the word. To actually do something more than complain here. I was told by one that he agreed, but that many here including himself would do nothing because they didn't think anyone else would do anything. He was absolutely right!
I know that our election system, which openly invites corruption with legalized bribery of our elected officials needs to be radically changed. We need to get rid of campaign contributions, a Super PACs, the revolving door, and institute Publicly Funded Elections (PFE's). Everyone already agrees that Washington is totally corrupt, but when you tell them that Democrats are too, they take A LOT of corporate money now, they deny it is true! "Not Obama!" "Not Hillary!" Yet we see that Wall Street is above the law. The media and banking oligarchies lie, steal, manipulate... Yet there is zero talk of reigning them in or busting them up, with the exception of a few Democrats and one Independent. The courts, both Houses of Congress, the Executive Branch, the banks and the media are all working for the same people (corporate people)!
Bernie Sanders has said that PFE's and getting rid of campaign contributions is his number 1 issue. He is contemplating a run for POTUS, but waiting to see if there will be enough support from us to be able to compete with all of the money and power that will be allied against him. Unfortunately, he will not get what he needs to save us from our own apathetic, disillusioned, and lazy selves. We will support the lessor of two evils, again, which means we will vote for the PTB's Democratic candidate instead of their Republican bogeyman. They own both so what do they care! We believe that the next Democratic President will help to set things right everytime! We act just like an abused spouse who believes their abuser's promises to "do better!" We go back time and again and will not vote for the a guy like Bernie who stands for what we want because he is not "electable" and we cannot have a Republican President or the world will end!
Meanwhile, the media will pump us up with BS because the Courts of Appeals said that it is ok to lie to us. Like a little kid at a Harlem Globetrotter's game, we will believe that all the posturing in Washington is real! That they really are different, even down below the surface. Problem is, for some reason Democratic politicians have congenital defects in their spines that make them spineless! It can't be that they are being paid to throw the fight, oh no!
Bush and Cheney lied us into war for their oil company and MIC friends, with help from Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as the media which played us like a fiddle! So go ahead, flame me! Don't do anything but read stories, offer opinions, and bitch, but don't tell me you care when you are not willing to do what you can to change this before it gets too late, if it's not already. Send more Democrats to Washington and act surprised and outraged when they sell us out. Be grateful when they throw us a social issue bone even while they are forgiving JP Morgan from stealing our money again. Meanwhile, my Lemming ass will be fighting all the way to the cliff!

[Orsino]

317. Lobby. Repost. Repeat.

These are the only things that have a chance of keeping the latest round of "revelations" from fading away.

[99Forever]

6. Thread win.

[True Blue Door]

7. Seeing everyone other than yourself as evil is not a recipe for human progress.

[Fumesucker]

13. Neither is seeing everyone other than yourself as stupid

[True Blue Door]

24. I do have that problem.

Unfortunately, there is never a shortage of enablers.

The gall of coming to a discussion about Bush regime crimes with the phrase "lesser of two evils" - the very one that won decisive numbers of votes away from Gore to Nader, creating the keyhole for Bush's coup.

Al Gore would not have tortured people, he would not invaded Iraq or used terror alerts to shore up poll numbers, he would not have seized control of the media and blared Orwellian doublespeak for years. He would have been a good President.

"Lesser of two evils" dickishness deprived us of that Presidency and gave us eight years of Der Tekkksan.

[Downtown Hound]

33. Actually the Suprme Court deprived us of that presidency

And Gore didn't help matters much either by caving in and not fighting. But I guess it's all our fault, right?

[certainot]

61. well, actually, gore was beaten mercilessly from 1000 rove-controlled radio stations while

the people who said they were his supporters ignored it.

same happened later to kerry, and that became known as swiftboating.

both owe their defeats at the ballot box to the same invisible political 2x4 still being used on obama and every other dem candidate, and will be used again on bernie sanders if he runs, or elizabeth warren. it's the only reason the irrational loony fascist R's are even in the game. it was the only reason bush palin cruz and the other republican tools got anywhere near congress or the white house.

and we just got blasted in another election because of it

[Downtown Hound]

292. Agreed, but Gore also owes his defeat to his not standing up for the people who had their right to

vote taken away from them. If he had, he still probably would have not been president, I'm under no illusions there. But a passionate response by him about the fraud that occurred would have gone a long way towards undermining Bush's authority. And when the Iraq War came around, Gore could have been in a much better position to cast doubt on the many lies that were being fed to the American people.

[certainot]

316. they already had the mainstream blockheads calling him "sore loserman"

or something like that.

i think they'd really work on that if he didn't have any proof.

it was us who were supposed to go nuts and do a lot more protesting than we did.

[True Blue Door]

74. Republicans will continue being treasonous thieves no matter what we say to them.

And Al Gore will not run for President again, so our criticism of his presidential campaign is moot unless we see future candidates making the same mistakes.

But we have immediate and absolute control over our own behavior as voters and citizens. When a candidate fails to make a case, it's still our job to see the truth and choose wisely.

Frankly, it wasn't that hard. George W. Bush was a raving psychotic with "emergent serial killer" practically flashing on his forehead in neon, and Al Gore was a progressive visionary who had championed environmental politics and the creation of the fucking internet. Anyone who was confused about the difference needs to acknowledge their limitations and guard against future episodes.

[Downtown Hound]

291. Actually criticism of Al Gore's campaign is not moot

And it's just another attempt by you to deflect any blame from him and place it all on us for not going out and "winning." It's especially not moot if you're going to say that Al Gore was some kind of passionate advocate of all things liberal during his campaign. He ran a totally boring, uninspiring, lackluster, centrist campaign that turned off many progressives. Not the least of the thigns he did wrong was picking Lie-berman as his running mate, the neo-con's favorite Uncle Tom.

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. yep

If you cannot see the difference at this point...there is no help left for you ...this is about voting at the very least against THEM...

And why you shame those that cannot pledge to voye for whomever wins the Primary....for fucks sake THIS is what you are voting against...voting defense...at the least.

[whathehell]

181. Thank you.

[Aerows]

230. Amen to that. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

32. I remain unconvinced that George W. Bush, Dickhead Cheney, the neo-con leadership,

and some corrupt politicians, business leaders, and corporate mercenaries constitutes "everybody." I do see some of them as evil, others as just extremely corrupt. So, if that's somehow hindering human progress, oh well, let's just say I'm not going to worry about it.

[True Blue Door]

166. And I'm unconvinced that most Democrats in Washington fit any of those categories.

The point is that investigating hundreds or thousands of people from the Bush White House, the military high command, the CIA, the governments of foreign countries, and their mercenary security contractors might be slightly difficult to attempt without descending the entire federal government into chaos. And slightly more difficult having it resolve into effective prosecutions rather than what most in the affected agencies and political bodies would see as a more orderly solution - impeaching and removing Obama from power.

[Downtown Hound]

290. What a bunch of crazy bullshit

I'm not really sure how investigating Bush administration war crimes leads to the impeaching of Obama, since Obama stopped the torture. But you have a marvelous ability to twist reality and logic.

And if investigating hundreds or thousands of people in the Bush administration is just too much work for your poor widdle lazy ass, I'll settle for just those at the top: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and maybe a few others. Funny how we can pursue terrorists across the globe by the thousands, but bringing our own leaders to justice is just too hard. WHAAAAAA!

[MadDAsHell]

312. Wholeheartedly agree with you and your first replier...

The immaturity of political dialogue in this country is astounding.

Pro-choicers can't just be people who are for women's autonomy, they have to be painted as murderers and people who love dead babies.

Pro-lifers can't just be people that think abortion is wrong, they have to be painted as anti-woman haters who want to take away all female freedoms.

Expand that out across every political issue and you have today's dialogue.

[YoungDemCA]

92. Things have gotten better in a lot of ways since Obama took office

And Democrats are hardly "evil", even if they're far from perfect. But I guess if you are looking for perfect idealistic morally absolutist politicians, than you'll be forever disappointed.

[Number23]

9. Woah. Practicality and common sense around here??! Prepare for teh Swarm!

I just saw in another thread where someone was "noting" that Obama called these people patriots and when someone else noted that he was the one that ended the torture program, the first with the original "noting" said "yes, but did he NOT call these people patriots?" Who cares about what he actually DID, right?? It's just what he SAID that matters. And the fact that this comment comes from the "he suuuure talks pretty but doesn't do anything" crowd just makes it all the more special and sadly hilarious.

I wonder if the incessant detractors are even wondering WHY the president released this report in the first place?

I do think that people are justified in being horrified by this report. Even if you marched in the streets and went to jail to protest these actions, I still think that now that we know a bit more of the full extent of what happened, being horrified is 100% legitimate.

[True Blue Door]

14. Agreed, but I guess I just never had any illusions about how far it went.

Once you understand that the people in command in the Bush years were psychopaths - no hyperbole, actual literal psychopaths - then the details of how they murdered and tortured people are kind of academic.

Some of us are just gentle, sheltered souls who can never really fathom that level of degenerate evil having that much official power in the United States. It's a subject of bad movies, not supposed to be reality. But it was for eight years.

All you had to do was listen to how they talked to know what they were and what they were up to.

And the switch to the Obama administration was morally night and day, but some people just can't see it - everything that irritates them is of equal significance. By implication, they belittle the magnitude of Bush's crimes by failing to put them in the proper historical context as something truly outside the normal flow of American history. The Bush years were an Interregnum of Constitutional rule, during which the republic did not exist - we were 50 states and an ad hoc monarchy ruling out of a ranch in Texas.

[Hissyspit]

60. CIA Torture Tapes

On December 7, 2007, The New York Times reported that the CIA “in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program.” Documents obtained when the ACLU asked a federal judge to hold the CIA in contempt of court — for destruction of evidence which that judge had ordered be produced — subsequently revealed that the agency had actually “destroyed 92 videotapes of terror-suspect interrogations.” The videotapes recorded interrogations of detainees who were waterboarded and otherwise tortured. The original NYT article, by Mark Mazzetti, reported that “the decision to destroy the tapes was made by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who was the head of the Directorate of Operations, the agency’s clandestine service” (the NYT later reported that some White House officials had participated in the deliberations and even advocated the tapes’ destruction).

Destruction of these tapes was so controversial because it seemed so obviously illegal. At the time the destruction order was issued, numerous federal courts — as well as the 9/11 Commission — had ordered the U.S. Government to preserve and disclose all evidence relating to interrogations of Al Qaeda and 9/11 suspects. Purposely destroying evidence relevant to legal proceedings is called “obstruction of justice.” Destroying evidence which courts and binding tribunals (such as the 9/11 Commission) have ordered to be preserved is called “contempt of court.” There are many people who have been harshly punished, including some sitting right now in prison, for committing those crimes in far less flagrant ways than was done here. In fact, so glaring was the lawbreaking that the co-Chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — the mild-mannered, consummate establishmentarians Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean — wrote a New York Times Op-Ed pointedly accusing the CIA of “obstruction” (“Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation”).

In 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a Special Prosecutor to determine if criminal charges should be filed. When I was writing my last book about the legal immunity bestowed on political elites even for egregious crimes, I actually expected that Rodriguez would be indicted and that his indictment would be an exception to the rule of elite immunity which I was documenting. As I wrote in my book, “even our political class, I thought, couldn’t allow lawbreaking this brazen to go entirely unpunished.” But I was quite wrong about that.

In November, 2010, the Obama DOJ — consistent with its steadfast shielding of Bush-era criminals from all forms of accountability — announced that the investigation would be closed without any charges being filed. Needless to say — given how subservient federal judges are to the Executive Branch in the post-9/11 era — the federal judge who had ordered the CIA to preserve and produce any such videotapes, Alvin Hellerstein, refused even to hold the CIA in contempt for deliberately disregarding his own order. Instead, Hellerstein — who, like so many federal judges, spent his whole career before joining the bench as a partner for decades in a large corporate law firm serving institutional power — reasoned that punishment for the CIA was unnecessary because, as he put it, new rules issued by the CIA “should lead to greater accountability within the agency and prevent another episode like the videotapes’ destruction.”

----

The Obama administration's aggressive, full-scale whitewashing of the "war on terror" crimes committed by Bush officials is now complete. Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the closing without charges of the only two cases under investigation relating to the US torture program: one that resulted in the 2002 death of an Afghan detainee at a secret CIA prison near Kabul, and the other the 2003 death of an Iraqi citizen while in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib. This decision, says the New York Times Friday, "eliminat[es] the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the CIA".

----

"McLeod’s comments echoed those made by Obama earlier this year when he said that the US “tortured some folks.” In the months since, the White House has worked closely with the CIA to obstruct the release of a Senate Intelligence Committee report, completed in 2012, on torture under the Bush administration. Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, is himself implicated in developing the torture policy while serving as Bush’s counterterrorism adviser.
The Senate investigation, while documenting what one source has called “ medieval ” torture methods, reportedly absolves top executive, military and intelligence officials of any direct responsibility.
As evidence of its commitment to investigate torture, US officials cited a Justice Department investigation in 2008-2009 that did not result in any charges. This included a decision not to prosecute anyone in the CIA for the decision to destroy dozens of videotapes documenting torture."

[True Blue Door]

80. Only one quibble with that information: Calling it the "Obama DOJ."

Presidents meddling in the Justice Department would be grounds for impeachment, so either you're accusing him of illegally ordering Eric Holder to close the cases, or you're accusing him of failing to illegally order Holder not to close them.

Which is your contention?

I'm not aware of any evidence for the former, and the latter is ethically sound.

[TheKentuckian]

94. Let me roll my eyes at the "realist" who even bothers to type such fantasy after any observation

of actual..uhm...you know...reality.

Including but far from limited to not appointing someone on a different fucking page on fundamentals. There is no constitutional requirement for a fake ass "team of rivals".

[True Blue Door]

114. He had to appoint an Attorney General who would be confirmed by the Senate.

A Democratic Senate, but ruled by amoral centrists - full of people who had colluded with Bush in ways great and small.

Or maybe you think 5- and 6-term Senators on the Judiciary Committee are the sort of people who are easily deceived and strung along where their own interests are concerned?

You think that one word from the CIA, or the Pentagon couldn't have instantly torpedoed the nomination?

They wouldn't have let him in the door if they weren't confident they could force his resignation if he defied them.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is real politics, not a student council.

[merrily]

157. Surely, you did not expect more than a bunch of trumped up rationalizations?

I know, I know, "Don't call me Shirley."

[True Blue Door]

167. I'm trying to explain how to succeed.

All you're doing is making pathetic rationalizations for failure, blaming everyone in Washington for why you don't know how to get what you want.

[merrily]

169. Don't let me interrupt your mansplaining. Please continue. You've been a huge hit so far.

[hatrack]

102. And Bush's psychopathic tendencies were visible as early as the 2000 presidential debates

The one time Bush came alive - really, the only time in the entire three broadcasts - was when he described how James Byrd's murderers were going to be executed. For the only moment in the campaign, he was articulate, even passionate, practically glowing.

He was just about to start fanning himself with one hand and beating off with the other. He was truly, genuinely, giddily excited at the thought of their pending executions. That's when I knew for certain that we were in serious trouble if this assclown were elected - and we were.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

116. Yes. My reaction to him then was visceral.

Like with Yukon Barbie as she strutted and winked her way through the RNC convention.

[True Blue Door]

124. That's exactly what I saw.

The man was physically elated whenever he spoke about killing people. He practically had a glowing neon sign on his forehead saying "Emergent serial killer." I never understood why so few even of Democrats could see that and stop treating that election like it was business as usual - we were on a precipice.

At least one Green saw it - during a Nader rally, a woman in the audience stood up and asked how Nader would feel about all his "Republicrats" rhetoric when America was living in a blood-soaked dictatorship because of a spoiler election letting Bush into power. The asshole was incapable of reflecting - he just brushed it off like the question was meaningless, but I've remembered that moment.

[heaven05]

323. you are confusing

you attack our outrage as coming from gentle sheltered souls, I was in Vietnam 13 months, grew up when people were getting lynched by other people because of their skin color, and knew about it then. Also many people on here are very experienced in the application of outrage at the RIGHT group(s) You attack us, then the BUSHCO bloodletting machine and then us for not stopping the bloodletting... I do not think that Obama had any choice but to say what he did because of the position held by the current Democratic Party in the political spectrum. You have to realize that the people who did these horrible things to innocent men, women and CHILDREN, believe me, I've seen horrible, and this was horrible, are not patriots. Sharpen you skills, you confuse me and I feel uncomfortable with even agreeing with you when you might be right. Stay out of civil rights, you're not ready yet.

[steve2470]

45. +1 nt

[msanthrope]

51. Well said. nt

[Caretha]

209. The President did not release the report

Congress did. It was a Congressional investigation.

I get it that you want to give President Obama all the kudos you can, but it is pretty ridiculous that in less than 12 hours after report was released, you are giving Obama credit for something he did not do.

The "memory hole" isn't that shallow.

Btw, there is an itty bitty problem, more like the elephant in the room actually.....and being the "party pooper" I am, I'll go ahead and point it out.......

Why oh why would the Democratic President of the United States call "the evil & criminal Bush cabal" - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, who are guilty of heinous crimes against humanity, patriots???????

He can't be that stupid or complicit, can he?

[Number23]

274. Didn't I address this already?

"Why oh why would the Democratic President of the United States call "the evil & criminal Bush cabal" - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, who are guilty of heinous crimes against humanity, patriots???????"

He stopped the practice on his SECOND DAY in office. I know that what he called these people means so much more to you and a few others here than this fact, which says more about you guys than anything else. I don't like what he said but it is INFINITELY less important to me than what he's done.

And just a few days ago, it was OBAMA/KERRY TRYING TO SUPPRESS REPORT!!

Now that it's been released, it's "oh well, he had nothing to do with it." There have been reports that Obama tried to suppress but if he had wanted this suppressed, I have no doubt he would have been able to.

[L0oniX]

11. Vote (D) and it will all go away.

[Fumesucker]

12. All outrages are equal but some are more equal than others

Clearly your outrage is of the latter sort.

[neverforget]

17. Props for the Rand Paul mention

[PowerToThePeople]

18. speak for yourself.

[True Blue Door]

27. Pretty sure I just did.

[PowerToThePeople]

31. i saw a lot of "we" in your op.

[True Blue Door]

82. Should I just say "you" and be perfectly accusatory?

I know some of the people I'm criticizing love doing that, constantly smearing the American people and the Democratic Party without acknowledging any share whatsoever in what they're attacking. But I find that attitude kind of douchey, so I try to reflect on where something I dislike intersects with my own weaknesses.

[bhikkhu]

19. Its hard to be outraged now, as if it was a surprise

One really needed to be turning a blind eye and avoid the news at the time to not know it was going on. I'm happy that the president explicitly worded an executive order in his first week in office against the use of torture. But I know that sort of thing can get institutionalized and is hard to root out; the current outrage is welcome.

But it is a little perplexing - where were all the outraged people when "the gloves were off", and * had a blank check and a 90% approval rating? Times change, fortunately, and hopefully with more open eyes and clear heads. Next time, lets decide not have a next time.

[True Blue Door]

30. Outrage is useful if it galvanizes practical action.

But too much of it is ritualized - we've seen it before. It's an expiating ritual, not a call to action. "I see this, I am outraged, my conscience is clear, moving on..."

Maybe something is different though. I'd like to think so. I have been pleasantly surprised by how active people became over Ferguson and the Garner shooting - didn't expect that at all.

Time will tell if people are blowing off steam or expressing a new commitment.

[tblue37]

79. Garner was strangled and suffocated.

I am sure that was just a brain hiccup (FYI, "hiccough" seems too pedantic to use these days).

[True Blue Door]

83. Yes, you're right.

So many of these police crimes, it's sometimes hard to keep track. And why I was surprised when any given set of them finally broke the camel's back and got a nationwide movement going.

[Zorra]

20. So, where were you when we were in the streets protesting the WTO, the Iraq war,

when we were Occupying and getting our asses kicked?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. Calling us "commies" and hippie bashing is my guess.

These types fail to acknowledge how many Democrats signed off on this torture.

Feinstein and Hillary Clinton come to mind.

[True Blue Door]

63. Everyone and everything you don't like is exactly the same, isn't it?

Facts and context don't matter, just how you feel.

If you spent more time trying to make friends than you spend looking for excuses to believe everyone around you is impure and unworthy, maybe the left in this country would accomplish something.

I have nothing but contempt for Hillary Clinton, for all the same reasons you do. But you seem more concerned with manufacturing disputes with everyone around you than finding common ground, and that's why the likes of her are in a powerful position again and the left has frittered away its earlier advantages.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

72. I'M the one manufacturing disputes?

That's laughable. Re-read your original post again.

[True Blue Door]

126. My final paragraph asked for practical ways to bring justice.

Funny how you have no thoughts about that - the single most important part of the OP.

Your brilliant contribution is to say Obama should Harry Potter Magic his way to a result no one in Washington wants, and if he doesn't then he's a sellout and an accomplice.

By which logic he's also an accomplice in the Vietnam War because he hasn't interfered in the Justice Department to seek the prosecution of Henry Kissinger either.

Maybe it's time you just admit you don't know much about this subject.

[True Blue Door]

59. You really don't know the difference between those protests, do you?

I guess if something irritates you, it's all the same.

What I was doing when you were protesting the WTO (because of sea turtles or whatever the fuck) was organizing for Al Gore's presidential campaign, before I could even vote. Perhaps you were organizing for Nader?

As for the Iraq War, I didn't participate in any street protests because I'm not capable of pacifism, and would have been a liability in a peaceful protest. But while you were participating in the (yes, helpful) ritual of expressing yourself and letting cops attack you, I was spending money and time I didn't have doing woefully amateurish journalism with no help, no resources, and no training, because I simply couldn't stand what was happening - actual, independent research, not reposting shit other people said.

I was tracing out cash flows and lines of authority from public documents, without any encouragement from "traditional" activists, and posting them to discussion forums where people like you yawned because it didn't make them feel like a "rebel" to read a flow chart showing where the money for certain parts of the Iraq War propaganda campaign was flowing. I will never know if my work achieved anything, but at least similar work by others did. Street protests make people feel better about themselves - that's mostly what they're for; my work made me feel worse. But the mere possibility that facts I provided guided at least one useful decision by someone made it worthwhile.

As for Occupy, again, not a pacifist - you don't want me near your protests. But anyway, I was too busy trying to work out how their decentralized near-pure democracy modes could be generalized to large population scales: You know, actually trying to do something with the ideas they were pioneering. Here's the difference between what I was doing and what you were doing: What you were doing ended when the uncoordinated, nebulous mass-movement you cavalierly namedrop dissolved at the first touch of police brutality. Why you're bragging about that is kind of bizarre. I mean, if you're able to do that - get hit by cops and not hit back - why aren't you and all the rest of them still there? Someone wave another issue in your face and distract you for a few minutes until you forgot about Occupy?

Anyway, I'm still studying the lessons that can be learned about democratic systems theory from those protests - not that you give a shit, since intellectualism is "bourgeois," right? Sorry I can't be a part of the trustafarian perpetual protest club.

[Zorra]

98. So, why don't you tell us how you really feel about those black folks who are

in the streets right now?

Are they just wasting their time, too? Seems to me like they've made the whole world aware of a very serious problem. Maybe they should just shut the fuck up and go write stern letters to Congress about stuff like cops murdering them with impunity. That always makes it happen!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5936037

"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth." Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From A Birmingham Jail.

Martin Luther King, Jr. What a silly dumbass, huh? Wasting his time, out there in the street, getting beat up by cops, and for what?

Civil Rights Act of 1964

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Maybe try to clear some of that Reagan era brainwashing shit out out the way, and try studying a little history.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

[True Blue Door]

133. Street protests are perfectly tailored to the issue of police violence.

The issue is that cops will not stop harassing, beating, and murdering black people on the streets, so people of all races can come together on the streets in front of cops and say "No more." People who've been victimized by the problem can come together with people who are morally outraged by seeing others victimized, and directly confront the people who are doing the crime.

That is a textbook case where street demonstrations are a Good Idea. It's part of why the demonstrations have spread so successfully, I think, and why more nebulous subjects - like NSA surveillance - are more difficult to confront in this way.

And also why Iraq War protests were perhaps not optimally planned. The crimes were being committed a world away, and the conspirators committing them usually were too, or were kept far enough away to never even see the signs. The protests were meant to be symbolic and expressive, not strategic - they failed to interrupt supply lines, halt commerce, or command media attention. They failed to identify concrete strategic goals, and were satisfied with "making a point" and then going home.

Just a bit of advice: Listen to people before forming opinions about them.

[Zorra]

135. You should have stopped at the end of the first paragraph, it was sensible.

The rest is justification fail.

[True Blue Door]

151. Your criticism is nebulous. Is that deliberate?

I know that's a common tactic for people to snipe when they don't actually have a point.

But feel free to make one now if one exists.

[heaven05]

320. YOU

are way off base in your blanket condemnations and outrage. You made some salient points in your original OP, should have left the rest alone. As I read more of your responses, I am beginning to agree with most who disagree with you......."concrete strategic goal"...how about stopping the murder of innocent and may be not so innocent, UNARMED people of color....strategic enough, concrete enough? You have no right to even try to criticize people on that situation. You want to "disrupt supply lines", be my guest, you want to command media attention, what 50,000 people in D.C saying no to BUSHCO is not enough to command media attention? The 'MSM media barely covered those people or the millions in other cities around the world. Be more precise in your deductive conclusions/criticisms of us and use those skills to criticize the right people, maybe you'll find the right path to be taken seriously.

[Cosmic Kitten]

299. Don't miss the point, MLK had a plan

[Zorra]

310. I didn't miss any point.

We had a plan when we protested in Seattle. Pretty much no one had ever even heard of the WTO before we protested in Seatlle in 1999. Our plan, and I know for a fact it was a plan, was to bring the WTO to the attention of the world, and make sure everyone knew about the WTO by the time we were finished and we succeeded.

All of our protests had plans. Study history, not Bill O'Reilly.

[Aerows]

314. And you, my dear Zorra

knocked it out of the park.

Thank you for doing so!

[Cosmic Kitten]

322. Why would you say " Study history, not Bill O'Reilly"

Comparing MLK, the WTO protest, and now torture
are each discreet social and historical events.

What worked for Ghandi, or MLK is not necessarily going
to change the current situation...
People need to think different and utilize the tools available.
The opposition is already several steps ahead.

So, not to be smug but what will protesting torture achieve?
We all know it's a crime
Only sociopaths embrace it.
There is unlikely to be any significant prosecutions.
We ARE already aware... so now what?
You think TPB will change because people march?

[Aerows]

326. Not to be smug

But what will silently accepting torture achieve?

[SMC22307]

125. Bottom line is that you're pissed off that no one paid attention to your precious research.

Where else have you posted this nasty little screed? Or are we at DU the only lucky ones?

.

[True Blue Door]

134. Given that I didn't mention it until someone else challenged me on it

that's a pretty asinine statement. My research was a decade ago.

And this is not a "screed" - this is honest criticism that accurately reflects reality. If you're threatened by that, do something to change the reality, not attack the person who sees it and talks about it.

[NYC_SKP]

252. Your nastiness in this reply is totally uncalled for and unproductive.

It sounds like you do some good work, I don't know, but your shitty attitude toward people who choose a different way to be politically active is just rotten.

What do you have against sea turtles, by the way?

Have you ever seen one? Should we just kiss them goodbye along with coral reefs?

[True Blue Door]

266. I think you have the roles in the exchange reversed.

[LawDeeDah]

22. Excellent piece of writing and thinking. Bravo.

Nugget:

Every time the issue comes up, we pretend to have not known before. Either this is a case of Memento-like anterograde mass-amnesia, or a lot of people just have to rationalize to themselves why they never do anything about it.

[KingCharlemagne]

23. In the run-up to Operation Shocking and Awful in the fall of 2002, I attended a

Coffee-House teach-in at one of the coffee-houses in Santa Monica. The featured speaker that night was Ron Kovic (of Born on the Fourth of July fame) and, when his principal presentation was over, I asked Kovic if he thought I should plan on spending some time in jail. Kovic adamantly objected to this, telling me the movement needed people "in the streets." And so, from late 2002 through Jan. 2009, I devoted myself to peace vigils and demonstrations, often going to 2-3 vigils per week in Mar Vista, Westwood and Palms.

So I suppose I would like to know: what else would you have had me do? During that time I was physically assaulted once, received numerous death threats from passers by (one of which so terrified my wife that she refused to allow me to vigil alone ever again), had my car repeatedly vandalized and saw one of my protest colleagues commit suicide over the Abu Ghraib revelations. (RIP Jerry - you called the torture out long before most of us even suspected it was happening.)

During that time, I contemplated doing a Norman Morrison (look it up) or a Malachi Richter (again, look it up). I decided not to, mainly because of what Kovic said and because of the love of my wife.

So again, what would you have had me do?

[True Blue Door]

150. I respect your contributions and your thoughtful response.

We can't change the past, and I don't find fault with the logic of your decisions.

I especially don't fault your decisions as an individual. And this is all academic now, but what needed to be different, had to be different on a large scale - exercises of nonviolent power rather than just expression, and backed up with the credible threat of escalation to self-defense if the safety of the peaceful protests was not generally respected.

Basically an insurrection held in a state of suspension pending good behavior. A tyrant like Bush would have tested people's resolve, but if they'd proved they could deliver on their threats, he would have caved. He always caved to genuinely determined opposition. We forget what a coward and opportunistic predator he was. He and his kind could only exploit the cracks, never control the actual structures of our society and institutions.

[heaven05]

319. I believe some good points about our

Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

inability to affect change in the process the BUSHCO administration used to justify "shock and awful" has been made by trueblue, as well as other points on our outrage that are true, to a degree. Hundreds of thousands marched, demonstrated against "shock and awful" here, millions marched worldwide, did it change anything? NO. We were right in standing up for our principles, yes and short term history has shown the rightness of our demonstrations/cause against the BUSHCO bloodletting machine. TRUEBLUE was/is WRONG in his blanket condemnation of us all and in reading your revelations, way off base. Trueblue has a righteous rant but like someone else mentioned in this thread, Trueblue needs to focus his outrage more precisely, like toward the ones who were screaming, USA! USA! USA!. I got stitches in my head and an everlasting scar because Agnew showed up in our town and I/we, a lot of us didn't want him there. So in regard to trueblue, am I off base? I do highly respect your efforts and those of your comrades...RIP

[KingCharlemagne]

324. Anyone who earned his or her stripes back in the days of Tricky Dick and Agnew has my

utmost respect. In some ways, I feel I have been trying to match the achievements of the anti-war and civil rights movement(s) of the 60s and early 70s ever since, having missed out on them by about 10 years.

Were there justice, Bush and Cheney would be in the dock not for torture (or not solely for torture) but for the crime of having waged 'aggressive war' (what Nuremberg called the "supreme international crime&quot , torture having been but one component of that larger crime. That no one has been held to account other than 4 lowly enlisted GIs is enough to really make me despair and TrueBlue's thread did nothing to lessen that.

I did exactly what Ron Kovic advised me to do and it didn't make one damned bit of difference. Now how fucking depressing is that?

[Downtown Hound]

25. How about you take your preachy high horse and shove it where the sun don't shine?

You have no idea what any of us did during that time. I myself blockaded the financial district of San Francisco and got arrested for it the day the war started. I also choked on some tear gas and pepper spray. I protested numerous times, I campaigned for both John Kerry and Barack Obama (neither of which were my first choice for candidates by the way, but I supported them because I believed the most important thing was to get the Republicans out of power). I participated in flame wars online, actual arguments in person, and did everything I could to change people's minds.

So, if that's not enough for you, kindly fuck off. Maybe you'll be happy if we resort to terrorism, 'eh? Because I'm not sure what else I can do other than what I've already done that will meet with your approval. And sorry, but I will bitch about the Democrats and Obama for letting these thugs off the hook until the day I die. And if you have a problem with that, kindly fuck off. Oh, I already said that. Oh well, can't say it enough.

[KingCharlemagne]

36. May not mean much in the cosmic scheme of things, but you're one of my heroes, fwiw - nt

[flvegan]

47. BTW

I won't tell you which one I was, but I wasn't 1, 3 or 5.
On Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:03 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

How about you take your preachy high horse and shove it where the sun don't shine?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5936388

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Wow, "fuck off" among other assorted insults in this hostile post.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:23 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: A member can respond to another poster without the personal insults,and still get the point across.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think this place can handle the emotional response from someone who said that he/she participated, rather than whining about folks that don't do anything, while tragically becoming angered because someone said something somewhat unkind to another involving the word "fuck" Grow up.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: really over the top and missed the point
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I was going to vote to leave it alone, until the poster in #25 told the OP to "fuck off", twice.
That was rude and unwarranted.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I was kinda torn about this one, but in the end this is an extremely emotional issue and everybody's tempers are up. This response is no more insulting than the OP that provoked it. Vote to Leave.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I would not normally leave a post with the insults and language. But the OP is far more insulting to everyone who has been here for more than a few years. I'll probably be the only one to leave it but I'm tired of being lectured by new members who have no clue about the rest of us.

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

[bullwinkle428]

69. Thank you for summarizing my feelings in words I had trouble

putting together in some kind of coherent way (no matter what juror number you happened to be ).

[Quantess]

156. Amazingly rare jury result!!

S/he told the author of the OP to go fuck off, not once but twice, and the post survived the jury! Amazing.

I attribute that to the very rude, belittling, and all-around douchey behavior of the OP today. Good call, jury!

[True Blue Door]

170. You're proud to be associated with childish hypocrisy?

[Quantess]

173. Childish hypocrisy? No.

I'm just pleased to see that the jury let it slide this one time, because you pretty much asked for that kind of reply.

It should be telling you something, that 4 random DUers voted to let 2 "fuck off" sentiments stand.

[True Blue Door]

178. It does tell me something.

That you think I'm some kind of authority figure it's courageous to "stand up to", even over something trivially petty and ethically corrupt.

[Quantess]

249. What? I don't mean to insult you, or people with mental illnesses, but...

if you might have a mental illness, I feel like you shouldn't be bothering with strangers online. You need to talk to a professional counselor.

That, or you are just a big ol' stinky troll. Either way, I'm done with this discussion.

[Downtown Hound]

289. Please explain how I was hypocritical...

And what you call childish I just view as being honest and not hiding my feelings behind a false veneer of politeness and phony civility. That's actually the opposite of hypocrisy.

[True Blue Door]

152. In summary, you think your personal feelings are the most important element

of a decade of world history and turbulent geopolitics, and you think I know that (and know you) and am attacking your life.

Take a short break for reflection and get back to me about what's wrong with that logic.

[Downtown Hound]

294. Um no, try again.

Your so-called summary fails in every way to grasp a single thing I said.

[derby378]

213. Fine, I get it. So what have you actually accomplished?

Nobody is saying that they don't appreciate your chutzpah and sacrifice. I've participated in antiwar marches and rallies, too, along with my beloved ChickMagic (oldschool DUers probaby remember my wife). We may have shown the world that Americans were not unified in bowing and scraping before Bush, but it didn't change things. Not even when the House and Senate went marginally Democratic in November 2006.

If you're going to choke on tear gas, you might as well get something positive in return. Something in the way of actual change. Results are the only things that matter anymore. And perhaps the antiwar movement was too diffuse to get actual results.

[Downtown Hound]

297. You know this might come as a big surprise to you, but...

"Choking on tear gas" is not something that comes with a guarantee of a positive reward. Sometimes, you just have to stand up to a bully even it it means you get your ass kicked. Hey, I'd love it if I got something positive for my efforts as in the world changed overnight and war, poverty, environmental destruction, racism and a whole host of other ills disappeared. But that's probably not going to happen. And the reason why I mentioned campaigning for Barack Obama is because I believe in a multi-facted approach with a variety of different tactics. Voting, protest, civil disboedience, debate, campaigning, all of it. I'm even willing to tolerate the occassional riot.

What did I accomplish? On my own, nothing. But the fact that I was part of a much broader movement, well we did actually accomplish quite a lot. We took Congress for the Dems in 2006, elected Obama twice, eventually ended the wars or at the very least toned them down significantly, stopped the torture, got a better health care system in place (although it's still flawed), and have started to make both cannabis and gay marriage legal.

Would all those things have happened if I hadn't "choked on tear gas." Who can say really? Would women have gotten the vote if the Iron Jawed Angels hadn't gone to jail? Would African Americans ended segregation if they hadn't committed civil disobedience, rioted, and formed militant groups? Would the American people have turned on the Republicans and the Iraq War or for that matter the Vietnam War if we hadn't protested by the millions?

I'll tell you what I think. I think that change happens when people get so fed up that they're willing to take risks and radical actions as well as campaign and fight within the system as well as outside of it. While an individual arrest or action or tear gas here or pepper spray there may not mean jack shit in the larger scheme of things, eventually, if enough people do it, then change happens.

And that's why I do those things from time to time and will continue to do them. I don't expect change to come overnight or as a direct result of anything I do as an individual. I just do my part to keep the fire lit for when change finally does happen.

[RiverLover]

298. Amen! And thank you for your selfless sacrifice for a greater good.

It does make difference. You're so right.

[derby378]

341. You've humbled me

I can see echoes of JFK in what you wrote. "But let us begin."

Something for me to sit down and consider for a while.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

26. I was in the streets while Democratic leaders were cheer-leading for war.

I was called a commie by fellow Democrats and was told multiple times that I was an isolationist who "didn't get the need for war".

I have been outraged from the beginning, so with all do respect, shove it!

[KingCharlemagne]

38. I hear ya, comrade! - nt

[True Blue Door]

153. The majority of Democratic leaders opposed the war.

At least try not to be nakedly disingenuous while preening as a paragon of principled dissent.

[merrily]

192. Yet, for at least 2 years, the Party has been trying to coronate this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3881264





Thing is, the resolution got enough votes from both of the largest parties to pass. That is all that mattered.

[True Blue Door]

193. When you say "the Party," who are you talking about?

Notice how Hillary Clinton isn't President right now? Remind me why that happened.

[merrily]

194. I never said they were trying to coronate her in 2008. Reading comprehension is your friend.

[True Blue Door]

200. Ah, but everyone who is now, was then. And they failed.

Because "the Party" chose someone else. And the main reason we chose someone else is that Hillary is a despicable tool.

[merrily]

201. I disagree that everyone who is trying to coronate her now was trying so to do then. That is not my

view of 2008 at all.

I was very pro-Obama in 2008 and I still didn't think the Party was backing Hillary then. Oh, in the very beginning, I thought the fix was in with the Super Delegates, but as the season progressed, I saw one thing after another that made me very happy.

[True Blue Door]

218. The super-delegates came into line with the Party rank and file.

That can happen again if we simply find a suitable alternative. I don't rule anyone out at this point - old names are welcome to surprise me, and new names to introduce themselves.

[merrily]

241. Again, I don't agree with you about what happened in 2008.

[Aerows]

277. I'm pretty sure

that if you asserted that water was wet and fire is hot, that particular poster will come up with some condescending asinine line of "argument".

What do we call people like that? *hint, it rhymes with bowl.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

282. Listen pal! I've done plenty of research in my mom's basement to disprove your "water is wet"

hipster bullshit! Because of stuff and..... so there. Like learn how to think man!

Like that?

[Aerows]

284. LOL!

That was awesome

[merrily]

306. +1 That's why he's getting one liner replies instead of explanations, reasoning, links, etc.

As I said, I finally woke up and you can't unring that bell.


Thanks.

[fredamae]

207. Dem Leaders Opposed the war? How?

By speech or actual vote?
If I have found the correct roll calls and bills...this seems pretty bi partisan to me.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114/cosponsors
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[True Blue Door]

211. I was just adding up the House and Senate Democratic votes listed on Wikipedia.

Total of 111 in favor, 147 against. That's 57% opposition, under an insane regime whose propaganda and thinly-veiled threats caused many Democrats in Congress to (apparently, anyway) fear for their physical safety from it.

[Demit]

226. What's your evidence for that assertion, that Dems feared for their physical safety?

[True Blue Door]

233. I stressed the word "apparently." It appeared to me that they feared for their physical safety.

There was a stark change in the attitude of Senate Democrats toward criticizing Bush sometime in 2002, where it went from full-throated dissent to terrified tiptoeing around their criticisms, practically gagging on their words sometimes when they scrounged for euphemisms they didn't use before.

The nonverbal behavior of some signified physical fear when the subject was Bush and particularly his War on Terror measures, and as I say their rhetoric and word choices also became very different very suddenly. Patrick Leahy was the most obvious example, and given his position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time in a 50/50 Senate, his compliance with regime demands would have been a key priority for them.

There are a number of alternative interpretations I could offer for what I saw, but none fit the context as well. Most of us remember this, right? That Democratic Senators in 2002 suddenly started acting very, very afraid of Bush? They weren't exactly political pugilists to begin with, but this was a remarkable extreme. I might be tempted to think it was cowardly politicking in preparation for the elections, but Leahy wasn't up for election that year, and none of the House Democrats acted like that either.

[Demit]

273. Terrified tiptoeing? Practically gagging? Nonverbal behavior?

Yes, I know you said apparently. Excuse me, but that's a weasel word. Give us concrete examples—quotes, news stories!—of the things you are characterizing so colorfully. Let us decide if it's feasible to come to the same conclusion as you. There are 111 Democrats in Congress, by your count, to choose from, so there have to be abundant examples of what you claim. You know, show your work.

[Dont call me Shirley]

29. My outrage started the moment Reagan/Bush took the office.

[byronius]

34. Thank. You.

[billhicks76]

35. You Know There Is Worse Not In The Report

I'm sure lots of horrible sexual assault.

[True Blue Door]

171. Undoubtedly there is worse.

It's pure speculation on my part, but based on the psychotic behavior of the principals, we're probably looking at burnings, amputations, vivisections, torture and probably murder of family members, etc. Basically the whole Mexican drug cartel repertoire.

[billhicks76]

281. Believe It

No detainees were interviewed. And FOX traitors have the nerve to complain CIA operatives weren't given rebuttals??? The entire report is BASED ON CIA MEMOS ALONE!

[stupidicus]

37. too funny

how exactly does your choice of "rolling your eyes" in response to the current outrage over torture in any way diminish the justifications behind the outrage?

I've been expressing outrage about it for a decade now. I had no idea that I was doing so because I need to feed my martyrdom/crucifixion needs as opposed to fighting the good fight for humanitarianism that I musta deluded myself into thinking I was doing. ANd of course this is only cemented onto reality by the fact that I wasn't singlehandedly able to bring those criminals to justice!!!!

You're not advocating that I take the law into my own hands, are you?

[freshwest]

39. Righteous Rant. Bookmarked. n/t

[MFrohike]

40. That's a lot of words

I don't really get the point, unless it was to vent a lot of self-righteous anger. As far as I can tell, it's a bunch of bitching that bounces around without saying much at all. Judged by your own snide remark about plans, it ain't worth much at all.

[True Blue Door]

174. There are just as many words as I require, neither more nor less.

And I don't lack for ideas about plans - I always share them whenever anyone asks. The people who didn't like what I wrote, mostly don't ask, and don't try to fill the vacuum with any ideas of their own. They mostly just try to shut it down with thought-terminating cliches.

[MFrohike]

285. It could be that

It could also be the overwhelming smug self-righteousness throughout it.

Oh, my remark about plans? It's a shot at the fact you mock those with plans, while writing a screed that somehow both meanders AND struts all over the map. It's a subtle jab at overweening hypocrisy.

[ucrdem]

41. We voted for Obama and he ended torture as soon as he got into office.

He promised to do it and he did it. I see that as action. Sure it would be nice to see convictions of US officials and since Obama hasn't issued any pardons it could happen. But he brought a stop to the torture and I think we the electorate get credit for that. Some of us anyway.

[LawDeeDah]

42. Some here seem to think Obama calls the torturers 'patriots'

Idiots.

[ucrdem]

44. Yeah well...

I was going to say something about that but then I figured what the hell, why pour salt in the wound, the poorly informed we will always have with us, so to speak . . .

[choie]

70. Here's Obama's quotes on the subject for your review:

From the LA Times:

“We tortured some folks,” Obama said to reporters during a news conference Friday. “We did some things that were contrary to our values.”

“You know, it is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had,” Obama said. “And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.”

Interpret them as you wish...and I know you will...

[ucrdem]

73. He hasn't to my knowledge issued any pardons.

Nice words perhaps but they have no legal meaning.

[Caretha]

212. It's not possible

to issue a "legal pardon" until someone is tried - convicted & sentenced. I'm pretty damn sure that hasn't happened, right?

Now if you really want to do some "nut cuttin'"....you could say Obama already gave the evil, criminal thugs a little social "verbal pardon" by saying....“

"You know, it is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had,” Obama said. “And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.”

real patriots

Yep, when I think of Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Rumsfeld and the rest of the cabal....patriots is hardly the thought that comes to mind.

[Art_from_Ark]

311. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon

before Nixon went to trial. Bu$h Sr. pardoned a bunch of Iran-contra players, including Casper Weinberger, before they went to trial.

[LawDeeDah]

76. I'm pretty sure that not every CIA employee was a torturer

and did have a tough job during the Bush years. Taking it that the President was calling torturers patriots is a stretch as wide as a stretch can be stretched. But people try.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

84. Jaysuz, even when the words come straight from his mouth...

denials. He's referring to those who did things contrary to our values, i.e., torture.

But spin away, it's fascinating to watch.

[LawDeeDah]

91. Jaysuz, some people should give up on pinning Obama with the Debil label.

I don't for a minute believe that he thinks torturers are patriots. But I know a lot of people are wishin and a hopin' and dreamin' that were true, that something awful will stick, anything, and they can be proven right that Obama is worse than Boosh! Told ya so!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

95. The words came straight from his mouth.

Seriously, take off the blinders. The Obama Admin has given war criminals and Wall Street a pass. That's not something to be proud of. Maybe in your world, but not mine.

[LawDeeDah]

97. I don't live in a Disneyland world, no.

I don't think all the evils and ills that the world has been festering and bubbling in over the entire history of humanity crawling about on it, mostly while whining, can be fixed and solved by the current President, and going by his history and record and getting to know the guy over these years by his deeds and words and his remarkable intelligence and compassion, that sort of thing is unthinkable for him. Completely out of character and not Barack Obama. But, if one is obsessed and riddled with suspicion of him, of course it will sound like how you want it to sound like.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

99. It's too late for me to attempt to decipher that word salad.

Read his words again. It's a carefully constructed statement, but you shouldn't be too confused by it.

[LawDeeDah]

101. Good night then.

You are confused about who is the confused one.

Get some rest and clear your head.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

107. Eight hours probably won't help...

with that Palinesque mess.

And just remember, it's not all about Obama. Your primary concern should be that this nation tortured, and no one is being held accountable. Except for one person who exposed the crimes. You know who that is, right? Who is behind bars?

[LawDeeDah]

115. zzzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzzzzz

nite nite sleep tight
don't let the bed bugs bite
if they do
hit 'em with your shoe.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

118. You have bed bugs?

Yuck.

[WinkyDink]

185. You cannot read. Period. Obama's term "THOSE folks"---THOSE---refers SPECIFICALLY TO "THOSE FOLKS"

he had JUST mentioned---THOSE WHO TORTURED AND THUS WENT AGAINST OUR VALUES (according to him).

WHO THE HELL ELSE DO YOU THINK HE MEANT WHEN HE LECTURED US NOT TO GET "TOO SANCTIMONIOUS"? SOME CIA DESK-JOCKEY?

The only other option to my initial comment is that you are being obstinately disingenuous.

[LawDeeDah]

253. Yep. 'Those' folks is being Very Specific!

[LawDeeDah]

333. can you say that again, sonny. but a bit louder this time?

[treestar]

147. You're ignoring the rest of what you quoted though

To focus in on that.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

89. Watching them spin that quote is something to behold.

They don't care about torture. They care about Obama.

It's like a sickness.

[merrily]

165. Now, now, just beg the OP's pardon, look ashamed and move along.

[TheKentuckian]

196. Okay your megamindship, then who was he calling patriots in his "we tortured some folks" speech?

[LawDeeDah]

214. The people who did work for the CIA and that may have been involved somehow

in the torture without knowing. Could be a driver, messenger a host of different jobs that did not know they were accomplice to something so awful until reports came out. You think the Cheney's and the other devils would let all the staff know what was going on?

Well, I bet they feel pretty damn shitty about that, what do you think? That they thought they were doing their jobs, their duty, and it turns out they were inadvertently helping the devils with their evil stuff. That is who the President is referring to, and if you think he would celebrate torture and congratulate those who where directly involved, then you don't know him, you never have. You just want another stick for the Obama pinata. Keep flailing away and keep missing.

[TheKentuckian]

339. I see no indication that he was trying to defend and soothe the cafeteria staff at the CIA

over their concerns about being part of the effort.

I never knew him? When did I claim to even be acquainted? He is a national politician not my best man.

Of course I guess you ridiculously mean "know him" like in a "Brother/Sister, do you know Jesus?" kinda way and fuck no and no I won't.

No, I do not get the Little Orphan Annie decoder ring that adds, edits, and alters content to the President's statements. No, I don't buy any fantasy that he was talking about any random drivers, clerks, messengers, people answering the phones, or any such ridiculous spin. In fact, there was no separation or accusations of evil doing bringing shame upon the righteous just admonishment for us not to be sanctimonious like anyone anywhere was being any such thing about regular people doing their job, the suggestion is absurd and we'll past spin.

No friend, I am not of the body. If you want religion then try a fucking church.

[LawDeeDah]

340. I know him well enough, and everyone should by now, to know he

would not call torturers patriots. That's is just plain stupid and willfully ignorant to believe he would take a 180 like that.

And wtf is this brother/sister thing?

[TheKentuckian]

345. Oh yeah, how time do you spend together? How many deep conversations have you had? When did you last

hang out? How many times have you helped each other carry a heavy burden?

Being familiar with a persona is not knowing a person.

[steve2470]

46. [phone] nt

[ucrdem]

53. Jan. 23, 2009: "Obama orders CIA to stop torturing terror suspects"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-orders-cia-to-stop-torturing-terror-suspects-1513428.html

But I don't expect the ignorers to change their stripes

[steve2470]

54. Of course not

[Major Hogwash]

62. Dood!! Some people here think that Obama is Bush-lite!

I've given up trying to talk with most of them here at Democratic Underground because some of them are simply in to the "I believe . . (fill in the blank)" conspiracy shit now!!
"Obama is continuing Bush's policies", "Obama is a rightwinger", "Obama is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat", and on and on.

When anonymous people go online, the first thing you can toss out of the discussion is rationale or logic, because they aren't going to use any to make their point.
Within minutes of discussing anything, but the weather with them, they will say anything to get attention!!

When Hillary announces that she is going to run in 2016 sometime in next spring, you can put a match to this forum!!

[LawDeeDah]

77. Worser than Boosh!

[merrily]

161. Not according to Amnesty International, he didn't.

[SidDithers]

43. DU rec for pissing off all the right people...

Especially the ones advocating not voting for Democrats.

Sid

[LawDeeDah]

57. +++

[Major Hogwash]

81. Too true, too true.

And they think that somehow both Skinner and Santa don't know what they're up to!!

[whatchamacallit]

90. "The right people" being those who consider torture a repugnant crime?

You never fail to bring the creep.

[YoungDemCA]

96. No, "The right people" being those who demonize Democrats at every level

while simultaneously claiming to be the REAL Democrats, the True Democrats (like True Scotsmen, but different!).

The constant self-righteousness and airs of moral superiority get irritating.

[whatchamacallit]

105. Anyone who condones torture

is a POS, no matter what their political affiliation.

[treestar]

148. Exactly

Of course no one condones torture. The usual straw man, topped off with a hat of self righteousness. "Some of us" are getting annoying. They are as judgmental as right wingers in their own way.

[merrily]

168. You should read your own post, if you want to see judgmental. Not to mention the OP.

Did you read the jury results of a post telling the OP to stick it where the sun don't shine and then telling him twice to go f himself? No hide--because the OP was more offense than that reply.

[Maedhros]

48. Outraged when it happened, outraged now.

Outraged at the bullshit that continued despite the change in the letter after the President's name.

[True Blue Door]

242. Not that you're implying equivalence or anything, right?

[Aerows]

279. Yeah, Maedros probably is

With good reason.

(R) does something horrific. Nation outraged.

(D) covers up for said horrific thing. Nation is supposed to not be outraged.

Fuck that line of thinking. I try not to curse, but this rationale called for it.

[zappaman]

50. I've been boycotting Wal-mart.

[lonestarnot]

52. Don't tell me how to feel, now, then or tomorrow. I am pissed off still!

[True Blue Door]

245. Feelings are a compass, not a map.

[lonestarnot]

307. My fucking compass.

[choie]

55. Who the hell do you think YOU are?

You presume that we just woke up and became outraged with the publishing of this report??? I've been outraged since December 2000 - your arrogance is really outrageous..and I"ll tell you what ELSE I'm outraged about - the fact that this president and congress refuse to hold the Bush administration and the CIA accountable. I echo what another DUer wrote in this thread before his post went to the jury....

[WorseBeforeBetter]

100. Someone who storms on to DU, bashes the left,

is cheered by The BOG, then rides off into the sunset.

It's been done to death.

[merrily]

106. +1

[Marr]

141. "You shall know them by their cheer squad".

lol, this is a tired old routine. This place has more misplaced socks than a dorm laundry room.

[Oilwellian]

217. Isn't that the truth?

I do denote a sense of desperation creeping in though. It's hard work cheering for a leader who referred to sadistic torturers as "patriots." The mask slipped, for a moment, exposing our party leadership paying reverence to war criminals. I guess we're just supposed to sit down, shut up, and eat our peas.

I will finish with a perfect example of an Obama Patriot.

Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape

After Donald Rumsfeld testified on the Hill about Abu Ghraib in May, there was talk of more photos and video in the Pentagon’s custody more horrific than anything made public so far. “If these are released to the public, obviously it’s going to make matters worse,” Rumsfeld said. Since then, the Washington Post has disclosed some new details and images of abuse at the prison. But if Seymour Hersh is right, it all gets much worse.

Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it. The speech was first reported in a New York Sun story last week, which was in turn posted on Jim Romenesko’s media blog, and now EdCone.com and other blogs are linking to the video. We transcribed the critical section here (it starts at about 1:31:00 into the ACLU video.) At the start of the transcript here, you can see how Hersh was struggling over what he should say:

“Debating about it, ummm … Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

http://www.salon.com/2004/07/15/hersh_7/

Unfortunately Hersh was wrong. The tapes never did come out because they were destroyed, and no one ever paid a price for that blatant lawlessness because hey, according to the New Democratic party, a child sodomizer is a patriot.

Good luck to the OP in his/her endeavors to sell that shit pie.

[TBF]

268. I picture them in cubicles -

They sound very similar to the commenters on many news stories. They must give them scripts or at least suggested talking points when they show up for their shifts ...

[whathehell]

202. Thank you, Choie,

I believe you speak for many.

[True Blue Door]

250. I'm the guy telling it like it is.

What you do with the observations I offer is your concern.

[choie]

283. Telling it like it is??

bullshit - you're just another goddamn apologist for this administration trying to deflect by insulting those of us who still have a moral compass that doesn't waver just because the politician has a "D" after their name.

[certainot]

56. i'll add that a lot of college students outraged by torture and guantanamo may want to check

to see if their sports mascots are flying on flags over limbaugh stations, where for years since 911 they helped limbaugh sell t-shirts and mugs and other paraphernalia emblazoned with his CLUB GITMO logo

[Hissyspit]

58. What a pile of rationalizing crap.

[lonestarnot]

64. Second that!

[choie]

66. I third it...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

86. They don't care about torture.

They care that DU doesn't genuflect before Obama. Their main fucking concern is... Obama.

Disgusting.

[Marrah_G]

108. ^this

[merrily]

172. I'm not at all sure it's caring about Obama, either.

Some sincerely do. The others? Not so sure.

[SomethingFishy]

103. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance,

of both things and ideas. You’ve just crossed over into… the Twilight Zone.”

The problem isn't with people who tortured, people who ordered it, people who defend it or people who let them get away with it. The problem is us. Pony wanting, perpetually outraged, lazy, fact spewing voters!!

[Major Hogwash]

67. Well, we knew the extent of the torture was bad, but I dare say, not this freakin' bad!

So, for someone to say they already "knew" it was this bad . . well, I just don't see how they could claim that.

I'm not sure there is a plan that will get implemented to obtain justice at this point.
History will record what Dubya did while he was in office, and the only recourse we have is to elect more Democrats in the future to prevent this kind of thing from recurring.

I'm weary of hearing the "lesser of two evils" phrase being used here these days.
I voted for Gore in 2000, but that didn't work out so well.

So, when I voted for Kerry in 2004, I was very disappointed that also didn't happen.
However, when I voted for Obama in 2008, I knew there was going to be some backlash from the racists in American society.
But, I didn't think the Republicans would just block everything that Obama tried to do after they took control of the House in 2011.

I honestly didn't think it would be this bad 4 years later, with them thwarting Obama at every turn.
But, starting in January, it will get worse.

[Historic NY]

71. Lots of Johnny come lately outrage...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

75. Are you suggesting that DU did not understand...

just how fucking evil the Bush regime was?

And if you just want to talk about how shocked and angry you are that the Bush regime was evil, email those sentiments to yourself in 2001-2005 when they might have mattered and just focus now on the practicalities of achieving justice in a meaningful timeframe.

That DUers weren't out in the streets protesting, that DUers weren't writing LsTTE, that DUers weren't bombarding their elected representatives with e-mails and phone calls, that DUers didn't have strained relationships with family, friends, neighbors and co-workers over the legal invasion of Iraq, etc.?

You, who have been here since 2013?

I'll see your eye roll and raise with a .

Newsflash: Many understood the BFEE pre-W. Stop insulting members of this board. And go back through the archives and fucking learn something.

What an uninformed OP, cheered only by the Obama Fan Club. Quelle surprise.

[hedgehog]

78. Hell, I was against the US being involved in torture before being against the US

being involved with torture was cool. What makes you think it started with Bush? Look up the School of the Americas sometime, or the history of water boarding in the Philippines.

We all do what we can to move forward, fractions of an inch at a time, but forward nonetheless. Going on a rant of superiority because so few met your standards of fighting the good fight is rather arrogant, IMO.

[stone space]

85. I watched the initial reports of Daddy Bush unleashing Desert Storm on TV.

While this was happening, what were we doing? What was anyone doing?

Several of us had been summoned out of our jail cells by an African American guard, when he saw the news reports that the bombing had started.

We had been out protesting the impending war, celebrating MLK's birthday in the traditional manner, when Daddy Bush decided to celebrate in his own way.

Our guard told us that we were in the most appropriate place to be that night.

[whatchamacallit]

93. May be the most shit post I've read on DU

Congratulations.

[malletgirl02]

104. Agreed

Also, find it unbelievable that the OP got over 40 recs.

[pa28]

121. Some old DU'er posted a "for us or against us" screed that was even more absurd.

If you can believe it that is.

So, I'll have to give this one a silver medal for shit posts. But that's still pretty good!

[Aerows]

313. I'm surprised you call this a shit post. n/t

[merrily]

163. I don't know if it's the worst, but it's up there.

How many times have you seen jurors say a post with not but one, but two go f yourselves plus "where the sun don't shine" is less offensive than the OP? And that's only the OP. The thread is full of the same kind of imperiousness.

Oh, well, as long as Sid is impressed.

[U4ikLefty]

109. Troll has been here for a year gonna tell us about what to be outraged about...lol!!!

Cute...not really.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

111. Now, now, I'm sure s/he lurked for years! (n/t)

[U4ikLefty]

120. Don't they all "lurk for years"?

I love them soooo much.

I also love how the cheerleaders embrace them like they've ben here for years...lol!!!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

123. Be sure to read post #59.

It speaks volumes, including "major chip on shoulder." And all protesters are trustafarians! Sounds like something that would come out of O'Lielly's mouth.

This OP is the sort of shit dumped by Spandan and SmartyPants and Nance and Milt Shook... it's an incestuous bunch. DU chews it up and spits it out and ooh doggy, they do not like that.

[U4ikLefty]

128. Holy crap...whadda douche!!!

I love the term " trustafarians". Maybe I should've asked my benefactors when I was living on $8/hour in the 90' & early 2000's.

I guess my involvement in Occupy L.A. was wasted because TrueBlueDouche said so...oops, will that get a hide? Don't care.

BTW I've seen total assholes (OMC comes to mind) who are allowed to spew for YEARS because the pretend to toe the Dem-only line while true fighters are banned. I have lost most of my resect for this place, save a couple of posters who have (miraculously) survived.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

129. .

.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

286. Here are some Trustafarians from Moral Mondays.

Be sure to take off your hipster glasses to properly view the pics (har, har, hipster glasses... so clever TBD!).

















And nearly 1,000 arrests.

Yep, major chip on shoulder.

[U4ikLefty]

308. Thanks, those pics give me some hope.

I don't know why...I guess seeing people put their asses out there revives my spirit.

I've been out there & know how much effort it takes. Sometimes to be ignored/mocked by the media & sometimes (unfortunately) on DU.

Peace & Solidarity
U4ikefty

[WorseBeforeBetter]

337. You're welcome.

One last one... the biggest Trustafarian of them all:


Robert Plummer, 83, Korean War Veteran

What the hell does he know?!

Peace and solidarity, indeed.

[Nevernose]

110. So what should my "plans" be?

For one thing, that's what leaders are for: to give us action plans. And that's why I'm still. Little pissed at Democratic leadership: the lack of leadership.

I'm not a blind follower, and I'm probably more pissed off about the torture than most citizens are.

However, I'm just a normal schmuck. I teach high school English in at-risk schools. In fact, I've devoted my life to it. I'm a Guardian ad Litem for kids in foster care as well as being a foster parent. In my free time, I either do environmental service projects with my nephew's Boy Scout troop, work on anti-bullying programs for my school, or go to professional developments or continuing education, and on the rare moments of free time (now that I've quit my second job) I think about finishing my doctorate.

In election years I work harder than most people who are paid by campaigns do.

So please, just tell me how I can bring he Bush Regime torturers to justice and how I can prevent it from happening again? If you can do that, I'm in.

Because in truth, you make a lot of good points? Many of them, in fact, but you lost me at the end.

[liberal_at_heart]

112. yeah because you did so much more than the rest of us.

I am actually pretty proud of how Americans acted leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Thousands and thousands of us mass protested the war, and voted against it. Forgive us if we didn't set the country on fire when they decided to ignore us.

[pa28]

117. We tortured some folks and shouldn't get all sanctimonious. Got it.

[TheKentuckian]

119. Hey, I think I have apologists bingo! I just needed a phony irate kiss up kick down tirade and

I just scored huge!!!

Good old excuses and rationalizations for those with power including or should i say especially for those we took action and elected to right the ship and cut the shit rather than wiping and dangling for the actual criminals and those covering for and seemingly all to often emulating and codifying their criminality to make it legal.

So, I'm sorry I didn't go all WOLVERINES! for your entertainment and so you could kiss up and join those you rationalize on behalf of in calling me a terrorist and for my blood but at least avoid your disdain...supposedly.

[True Blue Door]

199. Ugh, what are you blathering about?

I criticized the lack of substantive ideas, and somehow you think confirming it is a withering retort. No ideas to add, nothing of value to contribute whatsoever, nothing but paranoid, passive-aggressive blather, and you still somehow manage to be self-righteous about it.

"Yay, I offer nothing! I am a moral giant!"

Wasting my time even bothering to respond to such a comment.

[TheKentuckian]

338. No, you kissed ass and rationalized for those with power and authority and spit blame at those who

did not.

Why would you think your pissy tirade would deserve substance with your lame eye rolls, phony "ughs", weak rationalizations, and blame spreading?

Ideas? What have you offered but excuses for the powerful and condemnation of the rightful upset? Stop trying to force someone else to reinvent the wheel for the benefit of your position. We have criminals so prosecute them instead of joining and covering for them that is it. No magic formula.

Want an idea? Can the imperious scold attitude and stop making chump ass excuses for those with power and the authority to wield it.

[AuntPatsy]

127. curious how you feel about the way you worded your Op considering the responses...

[Aerows]

132. I'm unclear on what your message is

with this post, but I can assert one thing.

I don't have to be a saint to abhor torture. I don't have to be an angel to say "rectal feeding" is wrong.

I don't have to shun those that attempt to persuade the American people that this was what we asked for.

It wasn't.

Plain and tall, this is a horrible chapter in our nation's history. One can do "Dancing with the Stars" level of smarmy apologia, but the bricks and timber are that the US tortured people in our name and with our tax dollars, and everyone from Dem to Rep to Ind sought to hide that.

A stain is still a stain on our nation, no matter what lengths anyone goes to in a crusade to cover up outright criminal, atrocity level horrors.

[True Blue Door]

198. Yes, we've established this.

Now our thoughts have to go into achieving the political environment where justice happens.

It has to happen in the real world where these prosecutions are not and never will be a high public priority.

Potential defendants have to be prioritized, and the highest priorities politically isolated.

Make compromises with people who were corrupt rather than evil, to keep their names out of it.

And once we get to a point where indictments are possible, that's when the real problems show up.

That's when corrupt or ideological bureaucrats working for the other side start sabotaging the prosecutions, losing evidence, deliberately breaking rules and protocol in order to create grounds for appeals, and in the higher-profile cases, witness tampering and intimidation (if not worse) by military and intelligence types.

It is already effectively impossible to convict a billionaire of anything because of the sheer scope of their legal representation, if not outright bribery of judges and juries. This would be an order of magnitude harder than that.

Get through that unholy gauntlet, and be prepared that not a single conviction stands because of the concentric layers of corrupt and ideological appellate courts, culminating in the absolute guarantee that five of nine current Supreme Court Justices would not under any circumstances allow any high-ranking Bush regime official to be convicted of anything, ever. Also add the fact that the principled liberal Justices would probably feel compelled to concede legitimate grounds for throwing out verdicts that had been created by GOP tampering with the cases through their moles in the DOJ.

That's not including the hellish nightmare that would be how the media would treat these cases. The closest thing to the level of lies and propaganda we would see is how they reacted to the Iraq War - they would repeat alternate universe narratives over, and over, and over until people believed them.

I'm game for all of it, but I'm game for the reality of the task - and judging by the comments, a lot of people here aren't ready for that at all, or are even offended at the idea of really doing this.

[Aerows]

327. "Corrupt rather than evil"?

Your words.

How is something corrupt without being evil? Is it a more delightful form of explosive diarrhea? Is it a sweeter way of being burned alive?

I don't get "Corrupt rather than evil". Corrupt IS Evil.

The fact that you have a distinction between the two tells me more about yourself than anything else you could say.

[Aerows]

136. Somebody went

straight from "I want a pony" to getting on a high horse.

Seriously? Feel free to indict the people that are responsible, but trampling over everybody else that didn't have a thing to do with the decision is wielding a brush broad enough to coat Montana.

[True Blue Door]

197. I think we just have differing moral philosophies.

Everyone is responsible for everything, in proportion to their ability to affect events.

The only consistent alternative is that no one is responsible for anything, which is basically resignation to blind deterministic fate. I don't find that a useful perspective, especially for progressive politics.

[Marr]

137. This may very well be the most self-important tripe I've ever read here.

Congratulations-- this is epic stuff.

I particularly enjoyed your explanation of how protestors are just pampered trustafarians, and your choice to stay home, sitting on your ass and eating oreos, was the selfless and wise move. Because you're just so damned DANGEROUS and so, so much more devoted than everyone else.

lmfao.

[Aerows]

140. Phonics

Arrogant Belligerent Crass Degrading ...

I could go through the whole alphabet with just how smug, condescending and short-sighted the OP so pompously shat out in the original post, but then went on to have a bonanza of awful later on in this thread.

[CrawlingChaos]

146. Agreed. I believe the bar has been reset (nt)

[Marr]

220. You're trying so hard.

But you could sum up your position really easily with a doodle.

[True Blue Door]

224. Is that a meme? I don't recognize it.

[Aerows]

231. I'm pretty sure

you wouldn't recognize a barn door if you walked into one.

[True Blue Door]

235. Do you often just waltz into other people's conversations and randomly insult people?

Or are you just in a particularly charming mood?

[Marr]

243. This isn't a conversation, it's a post on a public message board.

Aerows (and everyone else) is perfectly welcome to contribute. If anyone should excuse themselves, it's you-- I mean, you're so fucking DANGEROUS! lol.

Since you're here though, I'll ask-- did you seriously think anyone could buy that bullshit about how you never protested any of these things because you're just TOO passionate?

[True Blue Door]

256. Whether you "buy" the truth or not is your problem.

Someone asked me a question about my experiences, I answered them. If you find the answers threatening, I don't know what to do for you other than remind you that the subject of this discussion is strategies for pursuing war crimes prosecution, so feel free to return to it any time.

I can't and won't tailor the truth to handle every fragile ego that might be within earshot when someone asks a random personal question and I choose to answer it.

[Aerows]

325. "Fragile ego"

^ Hmm. I think I've detected one. ^

[Marr]

237. I have to assume this person is 14 years old or something.

I haven't seen such an indignant, self-righteous bit of self-flattery in years. Maybe never. I actually read it twice because I thought it just had to be satire.

I don't even know where to begin-- the whole thing is almost pathologically self-reverential.

[Aerows]

238. I know

I thought it was satire, myself. Then I realized this poster was *serious*!

It's just odd.

I long for the days when the map of Mordor was the flightpath of Snowden's trip around Moscow.

That was epic, and still one of the funniest things I've ever seen on DU, Marr

[Marr]

244. lol!

I'm flattered you remember that, lol. That whole topic was pretty damned funny.

[Aerows]

251. It was hilarious!

Your response was epic!

That was one of the best threads on DU in recent memory.

[QC]

269. That was the second funniest thread in the history of DU.

Don't make me apologize for thinking that a different one was funnier, though, 'cause I am not an apologist.

[Aerows]

328. Don't be coy

What was the first funniest?

[QC]

334. Don't call me an apologist! n/t

[Aerows]

335. That one!

LMFAO.

[Quantess]

139. I can't believe this OP got recommendations.

All it is is a self-congratulatory sermon to the choir, so to speak.

Who is the "you" addressed to? DUers? If so, that is very obnoxious for the author to assume DUers deserve your vitriol.

If your "you" are not DUers, then your rant probably isn't even reaching your intended audience.

[True Blue Door]

177. It's addressed to anyone who finds value in it.

I found value in writing it. You apparently found value in claiming it has no value, which is the kind of logic that never ceases to amaze me.

[Quantess]

183. So, you are helping?

How does your post on a political board help change history? What value is your condescending OP to anyone but yourself?

[True Blue Door]

208. What exactly do you think history is?

What is it you think the internet is, and will become?

Everyone changes history every minute of every day.

Someone reads what I write, my thoughts ripple out. People don't have to remember something to have been changed by it.

Your thoughts ripple out too. So maybe get some better ones to share.

[Quantess]

255. That's deep, dude. (bong rip just now)

Like, by just writing a bad-ass essay and grooving on our feelings about how THOSE lame-asses let torture happen, we can cause history to undo itself. Totally unravelling history! We're doing it right now! (Bong rip) pass it on

[grahamhgreen]

143. Blaming the victims. Fail.

[True Blue Door]

176. Who are you talking about? Who are "the victims" I'm blaming?

Republicans commit crimes against us, but that's because we're their enemies, not their victims.

Their victims are the apolitical masses who do little and know even less about large-scale currents and forces.

[grahamhgreen]

225. If someone commits crimes against us, we are the victims.

[True Blue Door]

227. As a checkbox on a police report, sure.

But I don't see much purpose in defining progressivism as victimhood. It seems kind of insulting.

[grahamhgreen]

239. Saying the victims of torture are at fault for torture, is blaming the victim.

[True Blue Door]

259. Which would be a meaningful statement if I'd ever done so.

But thanks for that exercise in hypothetical digression.

[grahamhgreen]

263. In my view, every American is the victim of CIA torture.

[treestar]

149. Of course you didn't get any real answers

Insults only, because they can't face up to the challenge.

[Quantess]

160. Do you know what the "challenge" is?

Because I sure don't. What is he scolding people (DUers in particular) for?

[merrily]

164. LOL! Funniest post I've read this week--and I told another poster yesterday that

his post was Jon Stewart-worthy. Then again, he intended his post to be funny.

[True Blue Door]

175. Let's not be judgmental.

Just because someone answers a call for substance with thought-terminating cliches and unresponsive one-liners doesn't mean they have nothing to add. It just looks that way on every possible level.

[WinkyDink]

188. WTH is the OP to demand "substance"?

[True Blue Door]

195. To wit, we need moral fiber to have a mass-movement. :p

[WinkyDink]

186. ANSWERS? How about the OP offer HIS solutions? HUh? Where are THEY? Self-righteous blather.

[Cha]

162. Well Done, True Blue Door.. Thank you!

[WinkyDink]

189. Exactly what was so "well-done" about the OP's post? it's verbose, and he thinks it is cleverly

attacking Pop culture and us, but substantive?

Bwahahahahaha!

[whathehell]

190. Agreed..

He's already garnered two hidden posts in 90 days, I think he's going for a third.

[LawDeeDah]

254. Actually, that was one of the smartest posts I have seen here for a while.

That poster is no dummy, but keep treating him/her like one, it's the only offensive defense for some.

[WinkyDink]

184. OFGS. Did you note the NON-reaction to MILLIONS marching against the 2003 Illegal Invasion? What

else would you have people do---become the Baader-Meinhof Gang Re-dux? Bring back the Weather Underground?

Oh, wait; we elected a Black man who is friends with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn---AND YET WE STILL HAVE GITMO.

In a post above-thread:
From the LA Times:
“We tortured some folks,” Obama said to reporters during a news conference Friday. “We did some things that were contrary to our values.”
“You know, it is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had,” Obama said. “And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.”

So your specific suggestions to change things would be....?
IOW:
Talk about your plans to obtain justice.

Oh, wait:
"I know why I don't do anything about it: Because I don't trust the rest of you to help me..."

WHAT A COMPLETE POSEUR!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bullwinkle428]

205. If the poster was born last week, I might be willing to cut him some slack.

Otherwise...naaaaaaah.

[Kaleva]

265. How about adopting the tactics of Gandhi, martin Luther King or Cindy Sheehan?

The marches you speak of were conducted in such a way as to minimize impact on people's lives and on commerce.

Very few, if any, of the marchers risked a negative impact on their lifestyle by participating in protest.

[rock]

203. Agreed

w*s regime showed how very simple it is to destroy our weak Democracy. It's true it takes a lot of time since he has to do so as to slowly erode it away. But look how far two terms took it. Obama is still struggling to undo all the damage.

[RiverLover]

204. "Talk about your plans to obtain justice."

From this OP of yours, you obviously think very highly of yourself & very little of us who discuss our opinions on this discussion forum, so I'm thinking you must have some absolutely outstanding "plans for justice"?

Would you like to share them with those of us here you deem so unworthy? You say you do have ideas, but no one here would help you. I'm calling you out. If you really have something, share it. There are many activists here.

Or would you rather just put people down for voicing their outrage on a discussion board. and too busy rolling your eyes, to actually DO something?

Just wondering.

[True Blue Door]

221. As I've said in other comments in the thread

what I have is the kernel of an idea: The key to the first step toward prosecutions is politically isolating a strategically-chosen potential defendant. Political isolation is a necessary prerequisite because institutional fear of unbounded recriminations and unforeseeable repercussions is the main reason this isn't happening.

That means working with someone in the Senate Judiciary Committee - probably Franken (people with Senate experience can obviously tell me if someone else is better suited) - and on the DL with someone in the Justice Department to start meeting with people who might not want investigations to proceed, on some innocuous pretext; sound out their reasoning and motives, and consider ways to subtly assure marginal accomplices that they would be kept out of it and thus have no interest in mobilizing their institutional networks against it.

Doing that would just be the faintest initial hint of a beginning to a first step. The reality of pursuing justice on this level is colossally fucking complicated - you're not going to get anywhere near to even beginning by just drumming up grassroots support. There has to be an inside game, and it's definitely not being played right now because Senators have a lot of different priorities and there is no well-funded lobby to play these kinds of games on this subject for our side - although there most certainly is for the institutional powers (like the CIA) who currently oppose investigations. They're 100% inside game, thus far unopposed.

Do you find this premise to be interesting? A complex game has to start somewhere, and from what I can see this notion is a good place to start thinking from. If you see something in it, talk and we can brainstorm here. If not, good luck with pamphleteering at coffee houses or whatever.

[RiverLover]

293. I love Al, so yeah it is intriguing. And I'm impressed you had something for us!

I apologize, I didn't think you did.

Just my 2 cents, I think getting a group will millions of members would move Senator Franken to even consider it, or risk political suicide.

It'd be safer too, safety in numbers. We are dealing with pretty Evil people here...

But honestly, my issues are with the environment & ABC for our presidential nominee. I just thought you were a hypocrite. But you're not!! yay! And again, please accept my apology!!

[Feral Child]

206. What an audacious rant!

How much of your life passed by whilst you crafted this nonsense? I know how much of mine was wasted reading your whining in the hopes that there was a kernel of substance to it, that span of time now labeled "too much for too little".

Synopsis: "It's your job to do something about this, and that's my excuse for sitting here, typing with one hand because the other has it's thumb up my ass!"

There's precious little that I, you, or any other individual can do about it except to keep kicking this in the hopes the Public wakes up.

What is it you want, for DU to declare war on the US unless our demands are met? Should we mobilize at my house or yours?

Tell you what, go ahead and blame DU for your frustration. In the meantime I'll make a note not to bother reading your OPs, 'cause you got nothin' to offer.

[True Blue Door]

219. Blah, blah, blah, you have no ideas. Thanks for playing.

Exit through the gift shop.

[Arugula Latte]

228. I guess we all can't be practically perfect in every way, like you. And Mary Poppins.

[MisterP]

229. you really DO think that all of us to the left of Tojo WEREN'T outraged 2002-8, don't you?

you have an outrage switch that's currently turned to the Off setting because there's a Dem in office: his running interference on the justice system, open inaction, and PRAISE FOR RAPISTS simply do not register: I assume that the hundreds and hundreds of stories about it suddenly turned to, I dunno, Armenian at 12:05 EST 1-20-09; and you assume everyone else has an outrage switch turned to On just because we hate Obama that much

but there's your fatal mistake--just as you Loyalists assume that since we like the New Deal we HAVE to like the internment camps, or that criticisms of officialist candidates' cultishness was coming from a "Dean cult"; you assume that EVERYONE against torture is supporting Rand Paul because he speaks against torture; you've literally blamed critics as the one whose inaction allowed torture to continue under Bush

just the tip of the iceberg is stuff we hanged Axis officers for, and your main concern is to protect a President who'll never return your love

[Mr. Mustard]

247. Little irritated by this post

I know I did speak up, I did vote for Kerry, I did volunteer and I did express outrage, often. I dialed Dems and marched, knocked on doors for health care reform and got the ACA. Better but still a giveaway to needless health insurance corporations.

When the system is rigged to reward those friends, and it's money and power who are D.C.'s friends, us mere mortals are close to being inconsequential. Yeah, it's beginning to seem futile, as if my posts or my signs standing in a sterile "free speech" zone are quaint and amusing to those in power.

Therefore, it seems the only way to actually make change is flat out revolution, and I don't see you facing jail time and or death to begin the action necessary to stop Wall Street, Wall Mart, the defense industry and the daily poisoning of our eco-system.

This post is a cop out. Sorry, but to blame me or us for the systematic corporate takeover of our government is actually shifting the blame from you because you see if we had all done what you did it would be better. Bullshit.

The game is rigged, they have the money, the power and the military along with the government and you say we're to blame?

Then do what we all know is necessary, start the revolution. See what happens.

Love your passion, and your sentiments, but you're blame is misguided.

[QC]

262. !

[Aerows]

278. OMC

definitely.

Amazing how that one hates us so much, but can't leave us alone.

[woo me with science]

261. Oh, look. A really *bad* torture apologism thread,

nevertheless systematically recced and kicked to stay on top by DU's efficienT corporate/MIC propaganda-dispensing personas.

Torture, police state, and propaganda. Welcome to neoAmerica.

[Aerows]

280. It's weird how many of them

suddenly crawl out of the wood work, and aggressively, at that.

Woo, you have been decrying torture for several years on this board, so have I. It's nothing new to us. Suddenly some strapping, arrogant poster strolls in like he's parting the doors to a saloon telling us how off-base we are for ... EXPRESSING the SAME damn OPINIONS we've always had.

He's holding a squirt gun and pretending he's Jesse James.

[SomethingFishy]

321. You have to admit, it's kind of cute and naive..

That the OP thinks that the biggest problem we have is "we don't have a plan"..

[Aerows]

329. I'd say it is hilarious

if said poster wasn't convinced that everyone on DU is dumber than a bag of hair.

That ticked me off.

[SomethingFishy]

331. I enjoyed reading the responses..

Especially the one where I was supposed to be impressed that he/she worked on Al Gores Campaign before he was old enough to vote.

I was going to mention that I worked for McGovern when his/her mommy was in diapers but I figured they wouldn't know who he was..



Try and have a good day Aerows, I know it's not easy this week...

[Aerows]

332. I regret

that Molly Ivins isn't around to slam-dunk this bullshit with her characteristic pithy charm.

Meh, on second though, I wouldn't even waste a fingernail of Molly Ivins on this contrivance masquerading as a "serious" post. LOL!

[Kaleva]

267. People don't want to risk their comfortable lifestyle.

Folks like Cindy Sheehan who gave up friends, family and their job to go out and fight, in a peaceful manner, for what they believe in are very rare.

[Enrique]

270. i.e., Because Obama

[NYC_SKP]

275. ~~~True Blue Door, I gotta tell ya. You're skilz in replying respectfully to members needs work.

I'm guessing you're youthful and energetic and filled with a bit of self-righteousness.

The art of productive intercourse and dialogue are honed not by passion so much as mindfulness.

Don't let the strength of your convictions overwhelm your ability to listen and be more thoughtful.

Then nastiness of your commentary is a real turn off, especially in the replies downthread.

Some of your ideas are pretty good, but your nastiness just kills it for me.

Good luck in becoming more communicative, and if you want some useful links, I would be more than happy to provide them.

[Cosmic Kitten]

287. Thanks for the moment of clarity

Lots of salient points, too caustic for many.
It's understandable that many people
are stung by those observations.
Many people of good will and great intentions
might feel invalidated by such a scorching
call to organized action... to make a plan

Democrats need to see that beyond emoting
there is a need for focused and precise action.
In the words of Lee Camp; evil people have plans

[Aerows]

330. Oh. I'm pleased to see you wish to join

the people that haven't been sitting on their asses and protesting to effect the change you have suddenly realized is necessary.

Carry on, and here are some comfortable walking shoes to put on!

[m-lekktor]

288. forgive me if I roll my eyes at your precious thread. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

295. My anger in directed at those who not only defended torture but,....

....who also accused those who were against the use of torture as "un-American", "weak", or at the very least, "naive over the dangers in the world".

[sabrina 1]

296. We had a plan and we executed it, pretty successfully we thought, in 2008.

What do you suggest we do NOW? We were told AFTER we executed that plan, and it was a lot of Word and Sacrifice for a lot of people because they DID NOT FORGET ABOUT TORTURE, the WANTED the Torturers Prosecuted.

We succeeded! And then we were told when we asked about prosecuting War Criminals and Wall St Criminals. 'SORRY, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD FROM WAR CRIMES!'

And forget about prosecuting Wall St Criminals! 'WE'RE BAILING THEM OUT'!

So, who are you talking about in your OP??

[Cosmic Kitten]

303. We need a better plan

Electing Obama only achieved a few objectives

[MrMickeysMom]

300. So, if "the key to war crimes prosecution is to first politically isolate highest targets...

It should be the most opportune time to do this.

As you say, isolating the highest-priority targets would be extremely difficult because the Bush family's influence is global and that it has a personal network in the CIA through previous pappy Bush roles.

1) Protesting across the globe (e.g., Arab Spring to OWS) is highly visible and … well, global

2) The CIA is at it's politically weakest state. I don't care what any poll says.

Pardon me, but you need to consider more than what may be a no-brainer assumption.

[Cosmic Kitten]

301. The Democratic BASE is not a significant deterent

"They" know we will hold our nose and vote
for the lesser of two evils.

Until the BASE has an political spine
NOTHING will change.

Outrage is useful if it galvanizes practical action.

[MrMickeysMom]

302. How pissed off are you, compared to me?

Are we = in our piss-off-idness?

I guess we'll see the definition of "significant" sooner than later. Good luck with identifying your personal tipping point. We'll both need it. I'm there.

[Cosmic Kitten]

304. This is not about emotions

As the OP pointed out,
outrage is useful for galvanizing.
But it's not a plan and it is ephemeral.
Don't fall into a trap of "rage-du-jour".
Focus.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

[MrMickeysMom]

305. You're right… it is not about emotions...

It's about the number of generations it takes to return the balance of power to the point where representative government acts on behalf of those being represented. If it was about a "rage-du-jour", we'd have a hell of a lot more people getting gunned down in the streets for being Americans.

[Quantess]

309. I changed my mind: I love this thread!

I read through every post and laughed several times. I now understand why it has so many recommendations, because it's comedy gold.

[Quantess]

336. Comedy fuckin' GOLD

Is what this thread is in my opinion.

[heaven05]

315. true

Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 03:22 PM - Edit history (6)

but you ask, "where were they", when BUSHCO was creating and wreaking havoc with his bloody mess? A lot of us were screaming for more blood, from the Iraqis...... because THEY were responsible for everything...they caused 9/11, they had WMD's ready to unleash on the world, terrorist training camps in the 'graveyard of empires, Afghanistan which I guess was true,.. bin laden......USA! USA! USA!, Gawd bless us americans, "if you ain't for us, you are against us", jokes by GWB about WMD'S and of the search for that MAIN reason given by BUSHCO for getting rid of someone who knew too much and destroying Iraq and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. We've been "inconsequential" since Nov. 22, 1963, since Nixon's use of the "southern strategy" since ronnie the raygun, since GWB, cheney, Rove et al stole the elections in 2000 and 2004, effectively pulling off a coup d'etat against the little 'democracy' had always been in place, there will be no justice for anyone that comes out of these revelations or because of our outrage, it will be business as usual. USA! USA! USA!

To me, the PNAC agenda will always be with us. on edit: after reading a lot of your responses I will stand by my statements, but I do have to say I am beginning to agree with those that have disagreed with your imprecise and unfair criticisms of those of us who did stand at the barricades. You are wrong, on a lot of levels, you have a few good points. As someone responded to you downthread, sharpen your skills you will be more effective with those who in principle may agree with some of the criticisms you have. But you have really attacked the wrong group. What criticisms do you have of the USA! USA! USA! crowd. Don't see much, just attacks on the left. Curious. I wish I had read more of your responses earlier, I would not have been so ready to back you. I cannot on many levels now. You are attacking the wrong people. A LOT OF US were not screaming for Iraqi blood, just for the heads of the people who were doing the bloodletting. Tighten up your game or you WILL lose a lot of people like me who want to be on your side, but can't because of the confusion you sow.........

[CullenBohannon]

318. Strange

how this is all coming out now

[Peace Patriot]

342. "...they ignore you - because you are deliberately inconsequential."

Thank you for your rant! It is an understandable one, though I have some questions about your target, which I will presume to describe as ordinary people who are ineffective liberals and/or ethical Americans with short attention spans and no effective action solutions. You are aiming your anger at SOMEONE directly as "you" (including yourself to some extent), and if I haven't captured that "you" accurately, I apologize. I don't think you mean people who are hypocritical or insincere--but rather people who CAN'T FOCUS (for instance, giving equal weight to torture and net neutrality as issues of concern*).

To understand the problem you are addressing--and the "you" whom you are addressing--for instance, WHY the left (which I firmly believe is in the majority--even the vast majority--in this country) SEEMS to get "scattered" over many, many issues--we need to focus on this apt phrase of yours: "deliberately inconsequential."

I don't think that ANYONE, by their own choice, has deliberately made themselves inconsequential. I think that this is something that has been done to us--to the vast majority--and our main flaw or inadequacy, as a people in an alleged democracy, is failing to grasp HOW we have been made inconsequential.

You can't DO anything about it, if you don't understand HOW it has happened--how we, as a people, have been made inconsequential.

I would start with our elections being tabulated with 'TRADE SECRET' programming code, largely controlled by one, private, far rightwing-connected corporation (ES&S/Diebold), with NO auditing in half the states in the country, and miserably inadequate auditing in the other half.

'TRADE SECRET' vote 'counting' is not the first effort to render us "inconsequential," it is the last--the final blow to democracy (which occurred circa 2002 to 2004**). It is still a doable thing to get rid of these election theft machines--and, in my opinion, it's where we need to start, in peeling back the various methods that are being used to destroy our democracy. We know what some of these methods are--for instance, corporate media promotion of fascist views; corporate media "divide and conquer" propaganda; corporate and billionaire campaign money. But none of these and other ills (including other election rigging tactics, such as purges of black voters) can be addressed when a private, far-rightwing-connected corporation is rigging our elections--is determining WHO gets to use government funds and powers. (You wonder how we can keep 'electing' congresses that end up with an 8% approval rating? THIS is how. Most of them were NOT elected!).

The PROGRAM we are suffering from--of corporate rule, of endless war, of fascist news media, of rigged elections--is DESIGNED to do the following to you and me and the people of this country:

--disempower us (above all)
--demoralize and depress us with repeated defeats (especially the most involved citizens)
--divide us, bewilder us, overwhelm us (with MANY issues of grave concern)
--deprive us of vital information
--& disconnect us from the public sphere.

The five Evil D's!

I am convinced that this is an active, deliberate program, and that there is an active group of fascist powermongers behind it. But it doesn't matter if that is true, nor who they are, as to action. What matters is identifying the mechanisms of control and seeking ways to reverse them.

Throwing the election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' (so to speak) seems to me the most concrete thing we can do, as a start. It's just so blatant! Most Americans would agree that votes should be counted in the PUBLIC VENUE. It is a unifying issue. It is THE issue to stimulate civic involvement by most sectors of the population, and get people out of this very depressed and disempowered state as to their civic duties. Its target is highly appropriate and illuminating: corporate rule.

I am NOT saying that our loss of democracy is not our fault, as individuals or as a people. Of course it is our fault in many ways--due to inattention, selfishness, lack of courage, or whatever, and also due to our desperate needs living under a corporate/military junta (f.i., supporting ourselves and our families amidst massive corporate robbery). Yes, we have been remiss. But why pile on? That is my problem with your rant. You are piling on to ALREADY disempowered, demoralized people.

There are certainly other action projects to be done--and some people doing them: media/information projects, organizing projects, community aid projects, food and energy projects, street protest projects, racial justice projects. In fact, I am rather astonished at what our people have been able to do, in very difficult times. But my view is that the success of any of these projects to a great degree hinges upon our ability to elect true representatives of the people, and the most blatant obstacle to that goal is the corporate-riggable vote counting system. Reverse THAT and you are THEN able to start reversing many other ills.

We do need to keep asking who's in charge; we do need to identify evil powermongers (i.e., the Koch Brothers, the Urosevich Brothers (ES&S/Diebold), the Bush Cartel, the CIA or the Behind-the-CIA, etc.); we do need to keep analyzing difficult, murky, tangled issues (for instance, the internal war between Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld vs. the CIA, circa 2003-2005; the Supreme Court installation of Bush Jr. in 2000 (pre-ES&S/Diebold); Bush junta collusion on 9/11; the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs," and more)--because it does help to follow the pathways of corrupt power and seek out the "bigger picture." It helps to put things in context--to understand the anti-democracy forces, their goals, their internal disputes, what they use power FOR, the methods that serve them, etc.

It was VERY illuminating to ME, for instance, to research our party leadership on e-voting. Oh God, I was so shocked! Truly! Despite my knowledge of Corporate Democrats, I was flabbergasted by their support of 'TRADE SECRET' vote 'counting.' What it did was to solidify my view of the magnitude of our problems as a democracy. If we can't count on our own party leaders on the most basic element of democracy--counting the votes in the PUBLIC VENUE--we can't count on them for ANYTHING. I can only conclude that they, too, are benefiting from (or living in fear of) 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. Ergo:

As to practical action: Don't count on ANY Democratic Party leader to help un-rig the voting system. It has to be entirely a movement from below, a movement of ordinary citizens, targeting, say, very local officials such as county registrars of voters (who, despite all, still retain the power to convert from the immensely riggable machines back to paper ballots counted by the people).

Research and analysis helps our curious minds and our ravaged souls to deal with the vast corruption of corporate-run government without becoming depressed and demoralized. You begin to understand WHY nothing works as it is supposed to in a democracy; WHY our leaders are deaf. With understanding come glimpses of how this corrupt system actually works, and where it might truly be vulnerable to reform, and thus, ideas for practical, effective action.

It's a mistake to dwell on the conspiracies (and there are many very real ones); but it's also a mistake to blame "the people," who need bolstering up, not blaming.

Our people need FOCUS (for sure), but also information, ideas and strategy, and heartening examples of effective action. (Latin America has a lot of such examples, lately.) I think that vote counting in the PUBLIC VENUE may pull all of our very serious but scattered issues together. But maybe cops killing unarmed young black men will do so. I tend to think, though, that only cosmetic and temporary reforms will result from protests against the latter, and something similar will happen on torture--because the people who are apparently making the decisions are not accountable to us; they are accountable to the powers behind them, including ES&S/Diebold and whoever is behind ES&S/Diebold. They may have their internal wars (for instance, corporate warmonger Feinstein vs. some faction of the CIA), but "we, the people" are a joke to all of them (to those in front, and to those behind them), and they have all the police/military power to crush us when we get too uppity, and all the government/media power to further demoralize us with empty reforms.

HOW DO WE CHANGE THIS VASTLY CORRUPT SYSTEM? That is the question--not who among us ordinary citizens may be to blame for past inaction, inattention, scatteredness (too many serious issues), poor direction of our ire (at the wrong targets), and other failures.

I think you would agree, and you say, that action is needed. How do you get action? Not by blaming ordinary people for their confusion, or for past failures or current opinions. And not by promoting the myth that our Democratic Party leaders are somehow, magically, going to start responding to the will of the people.

The best of our Democratic Party leaders do the LEAST that they can do for "we, the people" without disturbing the corporate/military powers who rule them and us.

And the worst of them, well, they (Feinstein included) enabled torture, unjust war, mindboggling theft, bloated military, militarized police, corrupt "war on drugs," rise of the "prison-industrial complex," and so much more, meanwhile DISABLING our people, and preventing reform, with 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting, largely controlled by ONE, PRIVATE FAR RIGHTWING-CONNECTED CORPORATION!

If you want me to praise Feinstein for her torture report, sorry I cannot. It means nothing and will come to nothing. I find it intriguing (who's she out to get? what's going on behind closed doors?) but not important. I don't know if that's what you want. Your rant is unclear in that respect. You seem to be saying, don't criticize our party leaders for not doing enough (don't "move the goalposts" on them; don't dump on them for failing us "when it comes to alpaca breeding regulations&quot , but (if that's what you mean) I think that you are really, really missing the "bigger picture"--that all of them are owned by big money interests; that all of them are subservient to the "military-industrial-prison complex", and that not one of them--NOT ONE!--can prove that he or she was actually elected.

I think Diane Feinstein is a bit player in the larger horror that is our government.*** I think that Obama probably was really elected--and by a bigger margin than we know--on the hopes and dreams of the American people for a just government. But I think he was "groomed" to play that role, was permitted to offer the minimum of sops for the public good (private insurance-run health care--jeez!), and, most important of all, was PERMITTED to be elected. These kind of Democratic Party leaders--virtually all of them--deserve our closest scrutiny, our strongest skepticism, our blistering criticism and our continuing, intelligent analysis as to why they are failing us in so many serious ways. They are clearly part of the problem. They are clearly embedded in a catastrophically corrupt system.

How do we find ourselves another FDR, say, and how do we get him or her elected president, in view of the immense 'TRADE SECRET' riggability of the election system? How can we even get a true reforming county registrar of voters elected? How are we ever going to have truly representative Congress again?

I do NOT encourage quietude, or non-voting, or throwing away votes, or non-participation of any kind. But I do advocate REALISM. Our government is NEVER going to give up torture, is NEVER going to give up overt and sneaky war, is NOT going to stop police murder and brutality, is NEVER going to create a good health care system, is NOT going to stop horrendous pollution of our planet, nor anything else that most people want, until our leaders are made beholden to US, once again. Hardly any of them are now, and the few who are are just tokens to make us think the system is honest. It is not!

-------------------------------------



*(It's not really fair to denigrate net neutrality in this way--nor any serious issue of concern--because it isn't torture, the most abominable of issues (perhaps with the exception of war itself and the slaughter of tens of thousands of people, most of them innocent). Perhaps what we need to do is to see that ALL the issues of concern are RELATED, i.e., the same "folks" who brought us torture are trying to bring us a corporate-friendly "tiered" internet; the same people who brought us torture are robbing us of our money, our rights and our democracy itself, and are actively trying to "divide and conquer" us, with this very tactic: too many serious issues on which the will of the people is being flouted.)

**(Accomplished with the "Help America Vote for Bush" act, passed by the Anthrax Congress in 2002, which provided millions of our tax dollars to the states, to spread the plague of election-rigging machines across the land. Our Democratic Party leaders overwhelmingly supported this--probably out of fear (some of them), neo-liberal collusion with corporate power (many) and/or collusion with the boondoggle of war for our "military-industrial-prison-complex" (too many). In short, our Democratic Party leadership was ALREADY gravely compromised by 2002, by means other than election rigging. These included corporate media manipulation of news and opinion, and the FILTHY campaign contribution system--both legacy fascist methods from the Reagan junta--and 9/11 itself, used to instill fear not only in our population but also in any of our leaders who might have helped to stop torture, unjust war and other crimes of the Bush junta. E-vote rigging was not the initiator of our problems; it was/is the final blow to our ability, as a democracy, to identify and solve problems. It was/is the end to any hope of reform.)

***(For instance, Feinstein didn't know who Leon Panetta was--Bush Sr.'s choice for 'Obama's' CIA Director, straight from Bush Sr.'s "Iraq Study Group." She publicly called Panetta "inexperienced," but quickly shut up about that. She obviously didn't know that he is "old CIA.&quot

[Odin2005]

343. This is a steaming pantload.

[Quantess]

344. Read the whole thread sometime, for some good laffs

when you have time. The entire thread is chock full of hilarity.