![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | OP |
Kalidurga | Dec 2014 | #1 | |
Luminous Animal | Dec 2014 | #3 | |
Kalidurga | Dec 2014 | #5 | |
Jackpine Radical | Dec 2014 | #27 | |
Capt. Obvious | Dec 2014 | #37 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #80 | |
deurbano | Dec 2014 | #9 | |
brush | Dec 2014 | #28 | |
Demit | Dec 2014 | #63 | |
robinlynne | Dec 2014 | #98 | |
Motown_Johnny | Dec 2014 | #32 | |
Capt. Obvious | Dec 2014 | #38 | |
RedCappedBandit | Dec 2014 | #70 | |
sabrina 1 | Dec 2014 | #114 | |
JEB | Dec 2014 | #132 | |
WinkyDink | Dec 2014 | #96 | |
robinlynne | Dec 2014 | #97 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #119 | |
nationalize the fed | Dec 2014 | #2 | |
Major Hogwash | Dec 2014 | #4 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #110 | |
Hekate | Dec 2014 | #6 | |
Logical | Dec 2014 | #81 | |
DrDan | Dec 2014 | #7 | |
billhicks76 | Dec 2014 | #11 | |
SomethingFishy | Dec 2014 | #91 | |
lovemydog | Dec 2014 | #8 | |
cstanleytech | Dec 2014 | #10 | |
WinkyDink | Dec 2014 | #93 | |
cstanleytech | Dec 2014 | #105 | |
Ichingcarpenter | Dec 2014 | #12 | |
sendero | Dec 2014 | #16 | |
Ichingcarpenter | Dec 2014 | #22 | |
Ichingcarpenter | Dec 2014 | #25 | |
Jesus Malverde | Dec 2014 | #101 | |
LittleBlue | Dec 2014 | #72 | |
MrMickeysMom | Dec 2014 | #107 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #121 | |
woo me with science | Dec 2014 | #13 | |
kelliekat44 | Dec 2014 | #14 | |
Bonobo | Dec 2014 | #15 | |
KingCharlemagne | Dec 2014 | #17 | |
Scuba | Dec 2014 | #18 | |
robinlynne | Dec 2014 | #99 | |
99Forever | Dec 2014 | #19 | |
treestar | Dec 2014 | #20 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #23 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Dec 2014 | #77 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #79 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Dec 2014 | #87 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #113 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Dec 2014 | #124 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #127 | |
treestar | Dec 2014 | #90 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #122 | |
robinlynne | Dec 2014 | #100 | |
Jesus Malverde | Dec 2014 | #21 | |
MohRokTah | Dec 2014 | #24 | |
still_one | Dec 2014 | #26 | |
Bobbie Jo | Dec 2014 | #29 | |
BeanMusical | Dec 2014 | #130 | |
Bobbie Jo | Dec 2014 | #131 | |
BenzoDia | Dec 2014 | #30 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #82 | |
BenzoDia | Dec 2014 | #104 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #112 | |
Marr | Dec 2014 | #118 | |
WilliamPitt | Dec 2014 | #31 | |
whatchamacallit | Dec 2014 | #33 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #109 | |
MisterP | Dec 2014 | #36 | |
Horse with no Name | Dec 2014 | #75 | |
LawDeeDah | Dec 2014 | #76 | |
WinkyDink | Dec 2014 | #94 | |
robinlynne | Dec 2014 | #102 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #128 | |
NanceGreggs | Dec 2014 | #88 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #34 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #39 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #41 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #42 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #43 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #44 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #45 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #47 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #50 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #52 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #56 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #61 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #64 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #66 | |
Jamastiene | Dec 2014 | #129 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #123 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #46 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #49 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #51 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #54 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #57 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #60 | |
Sheepshank | Dec 2014 | #65 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #67 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #68 | |
JVS | Dec 2014 | #59 | |
LondonReign2 | Dec 2014 | #62 | |
Deny and Shred | Dec 2014 | #35 | |
Beringia | Dec 2014 | #86 | |
Deny and Shred | Dec 2014 | #92 | |
OilemFirchen | Dec 2014 | #40 | |
True Blue Door | Dec 2014 | #48 | |
Andy823 | Dec 2014 | #58 | |
obnoxiousdrunk | Dec 2014 | #78 | |
MohRokTah | Dec 2014 | #106 | |
JVS | Dec 2014 | #53 | |
JaneyVee | Dec 2014 | #55 | |
Corruption Inc | Dec 2014 | #69 | |
RedCappedBandit | Dec 2014 | #71 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Dec 2014 | #73 | |
pa28 | Dec 2014 | #74 | |
Rex | Dec 2014 | #83 | |
Marr | Dec 2014 | #117 | |
Rex | Dec 2014 | #125 | |
BootinUp | Dec 2014 | #84 | |
WinkyDink | Dec 2014 | #95 | |
840high | Dec 2014 | #103 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #111 | |
Marr | Dec 2014 | #116 | |
Post removed | Dec 2014 | #85 | |
Jesus Malverde | Dec 2014 | #89 | |
MrMickeysMom | Dec 2014 | #108 | |
Marr | Dec 2014 | #115 | |
grahamhgreen | Dec 2014 | #120 | |
NoJusticeNoPeace | Dec 2014 | #126 |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:11 AM
Kalidurga (14,177 posts)
1. Really Grahm I didn't read it that way
many people did not read it that way. I read it that some people in the war were patriots and other's well they tortured people and they were wrong. And that nothing is going to be done cuz it's history or some lame thing. So, yeah it is lame. But, it doesn't give rise to the monstrous claim you are making.
|
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #1)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:39 AM
Luminous Animal (27,310 posts)
3. Point out where he made the distinction between those who tortured and those who didn't. You can't
because he didn't.
Full linear 3 paragraph excerpt from the press conference. With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.
I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots. But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects. And that's the reason why, after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president |
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #3)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:06 AM
Kalidurga (14,177 posts)
5. I think it's implied in the paragraph breaks
but, then I am one of those weirdo's that think time and space can change the meaning of a phrase.
|
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 12:57 PM
Jackpine Radical (45,274 posts)
27. Read it as you will; what matters most
it that he did not outright condemn the torture or those who did it. You can weasel around forever with the specific words, like people did with Clinton's "Did not have sexual relations," but in the end he blinked when it came time to clean out the festering wound.
|
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 02:32 PM
Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)
37. He actually had his fingers crossed while saying it
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:49 PM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
80. This was vocalized. Paragraphs and sentence breaks were added after the fact.
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #3)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:31 AM
deurbano (2,858 posts)
9. What is it important for us "not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect" about?
Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1) That's creepy enough on its own.
|
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #3)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 12:59 PM
brush (49,973 posts)
28. Here ya go.
"A lot of those folks". Not all, and certainly, not the ones who committed torture. Did most of the people in law enforcement and national security commit torture? The answer is clearly no. Many in the CIA objected, protested and left their jobs because of it. These people certainly are patriots. And there were a lot of them."
Does that not say the people who left their jobs are the patriots, but certainly not the ones who committed torture? |
Response to brush (Reply #28)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:44 PM
Demit (11,238 posts)
63. I love this meme, that many in the CIA objected, protested, and left their jobs.
You're quoting directly from a thread someone started yesterday! Assertions that that poster made without providing evidence, any links to prove that what he said was true. If you can show a cite for his assertions—now yours—I think we'd all love to see it.
|
Response to brush (Reply #28)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:39 PM
robinlynne (15,481 posts)
98. You are trying to rewrite a speech. Unfortunately you can not fix what he said.
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #3)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:11 PM
Motown_Johnny (22,308 posts)
32. it says "a lot of those folks" not all
therefore not everyone who was doing that job were called patriots
deal with it |
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #32)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 02:33 PM
Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)
38. NOT ALL TORTURERS ARE SODOMIZERS OF YOUNG BOYS
Glad we got that out of the way
|
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #32)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:27 PM
RedCappedBandit (5,514 posts)
70. "doing that job"
Yeah, and given the context, we're talking about torture.
|
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #3)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:27 AM
sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)
114. I didn't notice that last sentence before: 'one of the first things I did was to
ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques'
I despise this language first of all. 'Extraordinary interrogation techniques'. He means TORTURE. America tortures! Everyone knows it, everyone HAS known it, for years. The only people in denial about it or unaware of it, are Americans. But only SOME? Is there a list of which tortures are okay and which are not. I remember the anger at the Bush gang when people learned what they were doing, the sheer depravity of it. I guess they though people got over it. I cannot get over it. Some of what I read back then, it was, sorry, I just can't find the words to describe it. |
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #114)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:58 PM
JEB (4,748 posts)
132. You are exactly correct.
Torture is already banned by by International treaty which we signed. To not enforce such laws is also a crime. We prosecuted and executed others for equal crimes.
|
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #1)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:09 PM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
96. So he's simply going out of his way to praise normal job-doers? And also feels the need to mix such
praise in with comments about torture?
Geez Louise, I'd like MY compliments from the POTUS all nice and cleanly separated from any "tortured folks" talk! Call me crazy! |
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #1)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:36 PM
robinlynne (15,481 posts)
97. It does, and worse. He said don't be sanctimonious about it.
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #1)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 05:47 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
119. If they're not patriots, then, what are they?
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:28 AM
nationalize the fed (2,169 posts)
2. ^
It's a New American Century and all of DC is on board. Full Steam Ahead. The New "Defense" secretary provides a clue as to what is coming down the pike
...Previously, Ashton Carter was a senior partner of Global Technology Partners focused on advising investment firms in technology and defense, and an advisor to Goldman Sachs on global affairs... If you don't like Torture and the New American Century perhaps you're a terrorist. Or a racist. The NSA will put you on a special list. |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:59 AM
Major Hogwash (17,656 posts)
4. No, he did not.
YOU deal with it!!
|
Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #4)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:18 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
110. Then what is the excuse not prosecuting someone who tortured innocent people?
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:12 AM
Hekate (86,357 posts)
6. You are determined to misread the quote. Ask yourself why, and deal with it. nt
Response to Hekate (Reply #6)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:50 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
81. LOL, You are determined to misread the quote. Ask yourself why, and deal with it. nt
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:26 AM
DrDan (20,411 posts)
7. that is certainly the way I read it
We have a horrible incident on 911.
The public is in fear and pressure builds to find those responsible and stop any further such acts. Those directly involved decide to use "tactics" not typically used to gather info. These "tactics" were all employed with the best of intentions and with utmost urgency - hence the use of "patriot" to describe those involved. Those committing torture were not singled out as "patriots", but those trying to directly deal with this situation were. And some of those tortured. |
Response to DrDan (Reply #7)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:52 AM
billhicks76 (5,082 posts)
11. Rape
Last edited Sat Dec 13, 2014, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1) This report didn't interview any detainees. It's all based on CIA memos that weren't scrubbed like the videos. You know way worse happened. Supposedly the interrogations the US military did on base included Iraqi interrogators sodomizing children in front of their parents to extract info. And I bet FOX news would defend it because Bush and Cheney were at helm. It's sickening. Even the Nazis called themselves patriots. Of course Cheney and the ilk defend themselves to save THEIR OWN ASSES. They use 911 to commit even more crimes and in my opinion facilitated that event. The shills at FOX should get public beatings for the crap they are saying today. It's disgusting. I hope they suffer soon.
|
Response to billhicks76 (Reply #11)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:30 PM
SomethingFishy (4,876 posts)
91. It also didn't include anyone sent out of the country for "rendition"..
Yet people are defending it and defending ignoring it like this is a handful of traffic tickets.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:30 AM
lovemydog (11,833 posts)
8. No, he did not.
Watch the whole speech.
Read the whole text. |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:47 AM
cstanleytech (25,394 posts)
10. No he didnt but even if he did call them patriots so what?
They are also giant douchebags for using torture of course and yes they can be both patriots and a douchebag that commits the crime of torture just like anyone here can be a douchebag and commit a crime but still be a patriot.
So my advice is learn to deal with the fact that we have some douchebag patriots just like we had some douchebag founding fathers who thought slavery was ok. |
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #10)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:02 PM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
93. One difference: In 1776 slavery was legal.
Response to WinkyDink (Reply #93)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 01:37 AM
cstanleytech (25,394 posts)
105. Legal doesnt = right thing to do. nt
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:54 AM
Ichingcarpenter (36,988 posts)
12. He's a wordsmith master
I think he purposely worded it for ambiguous messages and signals for a reason so one could read into what they wanted.
He needed to reassure the masses that torture was wrong and we did it. He needed to send a message to the intelligence agencies that you are safe. Hence the patriot message. I can see how both sides of the argument ..yes he did ... no he didn't. Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a humorous fumblerule used by English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques. Literally, the phrase means "avoid being unclear" or "avoid being unclear, support being clear", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the statement an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological phrase. |
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #12)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:12 AM
sendero (28,552 posts)
16. Exactly....
..... why take a stand when you can place yourself in the mushy middle and try to please everyone. This has been Obama's M.O. from the start and why he is a weak president.
|
Response to sendero (Reply #16)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:58 AM
Ichingcarpenter (36,988 posts)
22. My take is... he did... but like I said
he's a master wordsmith and I can see how some would say he did not though I do not agree....since there is no accountability.
he said it the way he did on purpose. |
Response to sendero (Reply #16)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 12:51 PM
Ichingcarpenter (36,988 posts)
25. As Oprah said: 'you're a patriot'
I'm a patriot' We are all patriots''
Look under your seats and just move on. |
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #25)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:49 PM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
101. lol
![]() |
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #12)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:28 PM
LittleBlue (10,362 posts)
72. Excellent post. Rec
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #12)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 01:57 AM
MrMickeysMom (20,453 posts)
107. Reminds me of the Ministry of Truth...
Yes we can't.
Let's look forward walking backwards Nudge-nudge-know-what-a-mean? |
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #12)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 06:03 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
121. Clearly the dog whistle he was using, let torture proponents know that
he thought of them as patriots.
The big whistle is his failure to prosecute such heinous crimes. |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:59 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
13. Of course he did.
Lots of vile, deliberate "2+2=5" being intoned through the telescreens today. |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:01 AM
kelliekat44 (7,759 posts)
14. So what!! All American "patriots" were terrorists by the definition we have now. Ask GB.
And they tortured soldiers and Native Americans as they saw fit.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:08 AM
Bonobo (29,257 posts)
15. "I understand why it happened." pretty much tells you the whole story.
It's like saying "I'm against rape, but she's hot so I understand why it happened."
Umm, no. You don't do that. Criminals are criminals and should be called criminals. And yes, to the "patriot" question... yes, he was including the torturers and trying to explain their "lapse of judgment" and have us look at how they are to be forgiven because they are patriots. Some of you all are in denial. |
Response to Bonobo (Reply #15)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:24 AM
KingCharlemagne (7,908 posts)
17. Best parsing of the 3 paragraphs I've yet read. 'Denial' about captures the response
of those who keep trying to twist Obama's words to mean what they don't mean and to escape what they do mean.
Agents of the U.S. government, acting on orders from the highest level(s) of that government, routinely and systematically violated the laws against torture. Those agents broke the law and those who gave the orders and set the policies broke the law. |
Response to Bonobo (Reply #15)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:41 PM
robinlynne (15,481 posts)
99. You mean the "mistakes" they made?
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:24 AM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
19. I don't give a damn if he did or didn't. It's trivial and irrelevant.
What I do give a damn about is that he is once again giving a free pass to evil, making sure that it will happen again. Seems to sum up his entire tenure.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:51 AM
treestar (82,100 posts)
20. So we really are expected to believe he is for torture?
That's what you want us to believe?
|
Response to treestar (Reply #20)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 11:10 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
23. Then why not prosecute?
Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #23)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:22 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
77. Because in HIS world, his actions have consequences ...
consequences that must be viewed and balanced. I know we all can stand on principles of right and wrong, with wrongs demanding punishment; but in his world ... the real world ... it's NOT that easy.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #77)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:47 PM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
79. In the real world, failure to prosecute has been a boon for terrorism worldwide.
Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #79)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:03 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
87. No it hasn't ...
Besides your understanding of individual punishment as a deterrent to classes of crimes is flawed. Yes, rounding up criminals and executing them will stop THEM from committing another crime; it does nothing to prevent those inclined to commit that same crime, from doing so.
Stringing up every one of the torturers, will not stop torture ... Jailing every "Criminal Bankster" will do nothing to prevent the next generation of fraudsters. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #87)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:23 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
113. So in your view, there is no reason for laws?
Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #113)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 09:46 AM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
124. No ...
I didn't say that.
I said that you over-estimate the deterrent power of jail, even the death penalty, on crimes ... particularly, on things like torture and financial crimes (i.e., Wall street). Those willing to torture do so because they have something they value more than their own lives (as misplaced as that might be) and corporations (banks) will always find someone willing to commit (thinly veiled) fraud in the name of profits. Jailing these individuals will not stop that ... and it certainly has not been a boon for terrorism worldwide (whatever that means). |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #124)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:35 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
127. It's not just a deterrence, it provides rehabilitation for the corrupt mind of the torturers,
As well as penance, and retribution.
Are you trying to say that these people tortured other people out of a sense of patriotism ("something they value more than their own lives" ![]() And it has been a marketing point for the terrorists, in ther view, they recruit people to fight against the evil empire that tortures and bombs children. |
Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #23)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:22 PM
treestar (82,100 posts)
90. So you think he's in favor of torture,
since he did not prosecute Bush?
I'm assuming some people have been prosecuted for torture since he took office. It's a crime on the books and someone may have been prosecuted. |
Response to treestar (Reply #90)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 06:07 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
122. All torturer should be prosecuted, can we agree?
Response to treestar (Reply #20)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:45 PM
robinlynne (15,481 posts)
100. Amazingly enough, it was with exactly your argument that people became nazis. If you do not
stand against (torture, in this instance), you are helping it to happen. Obama just defended crimes judged at nuremburg, so they would never happen again. Obama rationalized torture. You can not do that and be on the side of good.
capech? |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:52 AM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
21. Du rec
![]() Jesus |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 11:14 AM
MohRokTah (15,429 posts)
24. He didn't, but the haters gonna hate regardless. eom
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #24)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 12:57 PM
still_one (89,158 posts)
26. yup, it doesn't fit their talking point
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:02 PM
Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)
29. Did too! Did too!
[URL=
![]() ![]() |
Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #29)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:45 PM
BeanMusical (4,389 posts)
130. Nice selfie.
Response to BeanMusical (Reply #130)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:36 PM
Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)
131. ?
I know what you are but what am I?
That's it? Really? ![]() Geeze people. ![]() |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:06 PM
BenzoDia (1,010 posts)
30. Think about what are suggesting. That a sitting president would glorify torturers....lmao!
Response to BenzoDia (Reply #30)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:51 PM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
82. We agree that President Bush did, yes?
Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #82)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:59 PM
BenzoDia (1,010 posts)
104. Have a quote where he does?
Response to BenzoDia (Reply #104)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:21 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
112. Do we both agree that Bush was in charge of a regime that anctioned torture?
Response to BenzoDia (Reply #30)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:40 AM
Marr (20,317 posts)
118. You have an odd way of thinking.
You seem to begin with what you want to believe, and then ignore everything that doesn't agree with that.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:08 PM
WilliamPitt (58,179 posts)
31. This is one of the most astonishing denials of black-letter reality I've ever seen.
Not just here.
Anywhere. Ever. Right after saying "We tortured some folks," he said this: "And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong." Where's the gray area? ![]() |
Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #31)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:24 PM
whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)
33. Same cognitive dissonance
we got from bushbots. You'd think even the most devoted loyalist would be able to occasionally say "The president is full of shit on this, but I still support him", but no, reality simply gets wished into the cornfield every time.
|
Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #33)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 02:21 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
109. And oddly, cognitive dissonance is often used by interrogators to bring their target into the fold.
Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #31)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 02:31 PM
MisterP (23,730 posts)
36. "A lot of those folks" means "a lot of those torturers"
it's like Grant Morrison's "Invisibles" or "A Beautiful Mind" with a tiny segment reading different messages in what everyone else is reading
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #31)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:12 PM
Horse with no Name (33,948 posts)
75. Blows my mind. nt
Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #31)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:21 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
76. He wasn't talking about the torturers in your selected quote.
Why don't you quote the whole thing in it's entirety? Dare you.
|
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #76)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:04 PM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
94. Please. The "entirety" suggests nothing you claim. Why would he feel the need to demand we "not be
sanctimonious" about people doing NORMAL THINGS?????
"I'm eating dinner now. Don't get too sanctimonious about it." |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #76)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:49 PM
robinlynne (15,481 posts)
102. He was talking about torturers the entire time. That is the subject. the only subject. torture repor
t. This was a response to 4 years of investigating TORTURE. nothing else. there is no else.
|
Response to robinlynne (Reply #102)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:37 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
128. Outstanding point!
Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #31)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:15 PM
NanceGreggs (27,812 posts)
88. Still finding it necessary ...
... to "edit" Obama's remarks, I see. And I can see why it's necessary - because if you look at the statement IN FULL, it doesn't say what you want it to say.
"Right after saying "We tortured some folks," he said this ..." But he DIDN'T say that "right after", did he, Will? There was a lot more to the statement - but again, what you've chosen to omit is inconvenient to the narrative you're trying to promote. First you "edit" Obama's remarks, and now you're just out-and-out lying by saying "right after" he said something, he continued on with with something else - when he obviously didn't. "Editing" the president's remarks to omit relevant sentences? Well, it's not just for FOX-News anymore! |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:59 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
34. Of course that is the meme you'd like to press.
Truth and reality be damned.
the truth doesn't play well with your game plan, so I get it. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #34)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 02:36 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
39. So he didn't say the torturers are patriots?
Then he'll be holding those responsible when?
|
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #39)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 02:59 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
41. really
your "if" - "then" scenario is pretty stupid.
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #41)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:01 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
42. When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible?
Really simple question all of you scramble to avoid.
When? |
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #42)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:05 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
43. probably after all the screeching of
-he'll gut sopcial security,
-he won't ever support gay marriage, - he hates, he does, he doesn't do, he calludes, he ignores...etc after all that crap trying to read Obama's mind about a million topics, you want me to read his mind on this too? Again, a totally stupid post. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #43)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:08 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
44. Awww, poor baby
My posts are just so "stupid", I'm sorry they are so hard for you.
When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture? |
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #44)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:11 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
45. that fact that you make up shit and then ask me to read someones mind is pretty idiotic
I will refuse to make up shit and will deal with facts only.
if you haven't been able to figure that out by now, you are a little beyond any help. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #45)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:13 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
47. Poor thing
I didn't realize asking when Obama was going to prosecute the torturers was "making up shit".
When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture? |
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #47)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:17 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
50. provide some proof that no torturer under Obama has ever been prosecuted
you can repeat your stupid question ad nauseum, but it still doesn't make it answerable. you are not being clever, you are not painting me into a proverbial corner, you are not noble or wise or progressive, your repeated question is idiotic.
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #50)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:19 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
52. You want me to prove a negative?? LMAO
When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?
You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, tight? |
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #52)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:23 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
56. why are you repeating your idiotic unansweable question...I don't read minds
your not being able to prove a negative is about as likely as my being able to read Obama, Congressional and DOJ minds.
Do you finally get it? |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #56)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:30 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
61. Easy question
You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?
|
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #61)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:49 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
64. You changed your question
and I resent that you are pretending the idiotic quetions wasn't repeated ad nauseum.
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #64)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:52 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
66. You poor thing
Is this so hard to answer?
You want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture, right? |
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #66)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:04 AM
Jamastiene (38,184 posts)
129. Wow, this one is an easy one to answer...
I want him to. I know that much.
I can't believe they wont' answer this question. The other one, they wiggled out of without answering, by claiming not to read minds, but this one, they could answer very easily. They should know whether or not they want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #43)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 06:09 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
123. How bout after the screams of the tortured have stopped?
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #39)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:12 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
46. no, he didn't say torturers are patriots
spreading lies seems to be an on going meme on Du today.
Do a little homework so you don't come across as ignorant. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #46)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:15 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
49. Ah, good. Glad he didn't say torturers were patriots
Because of course saying they were patriots would be, you know, sort of a justification for not prosecuting those responsible.
When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture? |
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #49)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:18 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
51. so you finally admit he didn't say it
sort of throws the rest of you statement into the realm of grasping at straws bwahha haa haa
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #51)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:22 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
54. I didn't make a statement, I asked a question
When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?
You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right? |
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #54)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:24 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
57. "Glad he didn't say torturers were patriots"
that is a statement...thanks
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #57)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:30 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
60. Easy question
You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?
|
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #60)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:50 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
65. moving the goalposts...something RW'ers do all the time
thanks for playing
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #65)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:53 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
67. Really so hard to answer?
You want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #65)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:19 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
68. I guess it really IS too hard for you to answer
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #39)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:26 PM
JVS (61,935 posts)
59. That's not happening because of the great danger of sanctimony
We must not lose sight of the danger of being sanctimonious.
|
Response to JVS (Reply #59)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:31 PM
LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)
62. The pom-pom squad
is more interested in debating the meaning of "is" than discussing Obama's lack of actually holding anyone responsible
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 02:08 PM
Deny and Shred (1,061 posts)
35. Why urge people to not be sanctimonious?
People were 'sanctimonious' about officials who committed torture. Was anyone sanctimonious about officials who were under pressure but didn't torture? No. He was speaking of those who committed torture.
What he did not say is torture is wrong and is a crime no matter when, no matter who - American or not, no matter what the circumstance. He did not say torturers weaken the nation not strengthen it - those who tortured are not patriots. He fought the release of the report. This isn't tricky and it isn't multi-dimensional chess. |
Response to Deny and Shred (Reply #35)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:56 PM
Beringia (4,276 posts)
86. Obama also said torture is against American's values
instead of saying it is illegal and a crime. |
Response to Beringia (Reply #86)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:00 PM
Deny and Shred (1,061 posts)
92. Perhaps America has new values
Apparently, if you have the appropriate security clearance, or if you're a major campaign donor, no matter what you do there will not be jail time, trials, not even charges. Just the warmth blanket of 'Patriotism'.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 02:58 PM
OilemFirchen (6,960 posts)
40. How odd.
The thread directly below this on my Last Replied page is entitled "I am noticing a lot of full-blown denial over Obama calling torturers 'patriots' on DU."
What a fantastic coincidence, huh? |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:15 PM
True Blue Door (2,969 posts)
48. Your one-line post is obvious trolling. Deal with that. nt
Response to True Blue Door (Reply #48)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:25 PM
Andy823 (11,490 posts)
58. Exactly. nt
Response to True Blue Door (Reply #48)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:36 PM
obnoxiousdrunk (2,849 posts)
78. One line trolling is fun.
Response to True Blue Door (Reply #48)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 01:49 AM
MohRokTah (15,429 posts)
106. +1,000,000,000,000 eom
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:19 PM
JVS (61,935 posts)
53. He was very careful not to do that
But I'm not sure that such obfuscation is to his credit either.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 03:23 PM
JaneyVee (19,877 posts)
55. can we get some links?
Where did he say "torturers are patriots"?
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:28 PM
RedCappedBandit (5,514 posts)
71. The entire excerpt is a justification for torture
Tough times, fear, confusion.. so we tortured some folks.
Given that context, I'm not sure who ELSE he would be talking about other than people who share in the responsibility FOR torture. |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:30 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
73. Well, he certainly didn't call them thugs, monsters, sociopathic criminals, or paid sadists.
As they so richly deserve.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:57 PM
pa28 (6,145 posts)
74. Don't bother engaging with the flat earth society.
They'll argue semantics all day long if necessary to support whatever objective reality is convenient for them at the time.
Just don't do it. |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:53 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
83. He admitted that we (America) broke the law many times.
All these hangups on semantics. Clearly he said crimes were committed and now it will be interesting to see what is done about it.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #83)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:34 AM
Marr (20,317 posts)
117. Exactly-- acknowledging that 'we tortured some folks', and having no legal proceedings
is just... well, it's sickening, and it undermines the whole notion of law.
|
Response to Marr (Reply #117)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 01:07 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
125. That is the whole point people are trying to make, but others keep pretending
this is all about hating Obama. You would think by now that they would realize that bullshit distraction doesn't work and never did.
![]() |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:54 PM
BootinUp (44,947 posts)
84. Why would he even do that? Obama is smarter than about anyone on this stupid forum
why would he say something like that? Because he wanted to rile the left up? Seriously? Perhaps you should consider that you are mistaken about his meaning.
|
Response to BootinUp (Reply #84)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:06 PM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
95. Speak for yourself!
Response to BootinUp (Reply #84)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:07 PM
840high (17,196 posts)
103. Perhaps he's not smarter than
anyone on this forum.
|
Response to BootinUp (Reply #84)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:20 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
111. Why would anyone not prosecute someone who tortured an innocent person?
Response to BootinUp (Reply #84)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:32 AM
Marr (20,317 posts)
116. Well, he did say it.
So maybe you need to revisit some of your other assumptions.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Post removed
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:24 PM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
89. bump..nt
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 02:00 AM
MrMickeysMom (20,453 posts)
108. Dealing with it, step #1...
Admit there is a problem with leaders who deliver ambiguous meaning messages that are supposed to satisfy everyone's quest.
You can't please all of the people all of the time… and if the "base" were EVER your people, you certainly have not pleased them, Mr. President. |
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:29 AM
Marr (20,317 posts)
115. People who say the group he labeled 'patriots' was vague are arguing against Obama.
If it seems vague to you as to who he was calling 'patriots', well, that's because he was diffusing the blame. He was sort of casually lumping everyone into one group and saying, 'hey, they meant well'.
The entire over-arching message of that statement was one of minimizing the crime of torture. That is undeniable. The torturers and the people who instituted the policies were not tried or prosecuted. That is undeniable. |
Response to Marr (Reply #115)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 05:54 AM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
120. The reason for not prosecuting the torturers is
clearly because he feels they were acting out of patriotic zeal, and thus should be excused.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 01:27 PM
NoJusticeNoPeace (5,018 posts)
126. And while we debate this Jamie Dimon and others are plotting the annihilation of all but the one
percent.
It is a very carefully planned event, will happen in 2016, and it will be very painful and we will deserve it because we as a collective whole in America are unwilling to do anything about it. |