This message was self-deleted by its author

[DeSwiss]

72. You misunderstand.

Whom else could he have been referring to as being sanctimonious -- is what I am referring to and which was your point or so it seemed.

It makes no sense for Obama to make the statement that ''for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect'' and not conclude that the object of his jibe were those who seek to have the torturers convicted of the crimes they perpetrated. Who, coincidentally, also happen to be the ones admitting their guilt at bugging the Senate and reading their emails.

And quite frankly I'll have to pass on the ''enormous pressure'' BS line. That's why they're supposed to be professionals. Otherwise any Tom Dick or Harry could do it, right? Maybe that's the real problem, we did have any Tom Dick or Harry doing things. Things they shouldn't have.

In point of fact these were the exact times the Constitution was written for. To guide us through rough waters and to help us keep our bearings when emotions and revenge runs high. But we didn't. It's easy to be a democracy when there's no pressure on you to prove it. Obama is just making excuses for abhorrent and barbaric behavior. And I'll have none of it.

You have to admit that there's a serious problem when there is pressure on our elected leaders and their impulse was to torture someone to make them pay, or to make them tell you who should pay so you can torture someone else, until you feel yourself vindicated.

- This was the worst speech of any kind that I've heard in a long time. And he seems more pathetic every time he opens his mouth to defend the indefensible.