Hey Naysayers, What'cha Say Now?

[Boomerang Diddle]

Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government's efforts to cope with terrorism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_interrogation_memos_2

[vaberella]

1. Let's leave them alone. They're eating crow right now. n/t

[Skidmore]

2. Crow goes down hard after

an appetizer of Whine&Cheez.

[CTyankee]

3. But but he's a corporate fascist.!

Yep, haven't heard much from that crowd...

[vaberella]

6. I remember that poster. Wasn't it that he's "taking orders from his corporate leaders"?

[CTyankee]

58. blah blah blah...something like that...I don't even listen to it.

I guess so, whatever YOU say. I just can't keep up with this stuff...

All I know is that I trust my president. I supported him in the campaign and I voted for him. He deserves my trust and my faith in this cruical period.

[Peregrine Took]

4. Hey maybe it was our reaction that caused him to change his tone.

Still, and all, I'll believe it when I see it.

[vaberella]

9. What tone did he change? O never changed his tone but reiterated what he said.

It was Gibbs and Rahm who made their statements. But O never said anything they said.

[CTyankee]

60. That COULD be. I can imagine that he had further information he hadn't had before

that changed his mind. Who knows?

[CTyankee]

61. That COULD be. I can imagine that he had further information he hadn't had before

that changed his mind. Who knows?

[GeorgeGist]

5. Obama saw the light ...

after the naysayers said NO.

[Zhade]

8. Maybe. We'd never get any credit though.

NT!

[Cha]

14. Oh, so now you're not only not giving

President Obama any credit..you're trying to take the credit.

[NoSheep]

41. We're going to be seeing a lot of that.

[Cha]

44. Too bad for them they

have no credibility.

[NoSheep]

67. I hope some day they will realize how fortunate they are to have a President

who cares about them, and that they've been lied to.

[tridim]

26. The "let him do his job" people said NO too.

That's the fallacy of the recent chicken little attitudes on DU. We're all on the same side, but apparently some of us know Obama's character better than others.

[NoSheep]

40. I really don't think so. I think he wanted the memos out there for everyone to see so they wouldn't

question his motives. It makes all the sense in the world! Aren't you happy today? I am happy happy happy!

[Number23]

69. Do you honestly believe that? Honestly??

[Zhade]

7. Believe it when I see it.

No point in believing in things without evidence.

I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong. Hasn't happened yet.

[Duer 157099]

10. We take him at his word. No crow involved.

Just because we cannot mind read and assume that what he says is not what he meant, like so many others seem able to do, is no cause for eating crow.

Besides, tomorrow there might be a different statement.

I figure the best we can do is voice our opinions, whatever they be and hope that he takes notice. Unlike those who would rather remain silently hopeful.

[Egnever]

29. thats not what you did though

What you did was take what he didnt say and turned it into what you thought he meant. Mind reading indeed. He never said there wouldnt be prosecutions he said that he didnt think we should prosecute the people that acted in good faith acording to the DOJ memo. I have been screaming that for days here but it was more convenient to read what you wanted to read inbto his lack of a statemnt that there would be others prosecuted.


He played the public well in this instance IMHO. His non statemtn made millions demand action and gives him the leway to step aside and let justice take its course.

[NoSheep]

43. Exactly.

[Fire1]

54. SUSTAINED!!!! LOL!!

[keith the dem]

11. Those naysayers give Obama the wiggle room

to do this!

Krugman is right as usual! Keep up the good work.

[jberryhill]

12. Nay!

WTF else do naysayers say?

[peace13]

13. Nice call out.

You may want to read the board rules. Posts such as this do nothing for this forum. We must all march in step with who or is whom?

[Cha]

16. Yeah, you know who the poster

is talking to.

[peace13]

17. Explain it to me. n/t

[MADem]

18. That shit rolls both ways, you know.

I haven't said too much on this topic, but I have noticed that anyone who dared say "Wait and see" or "I think the man will do the right thing" was piled on in short order and called an "apologist" (as though they thought that was a dirty word, or something). The ones who used the real invective (fascist, BUSH2, GOP enabler, that kind of crap) do seem to be laying low.

This report does give the "Whine and Cheese" club cause for pause. The silence, after plenty of what you're terming "calling out" of the other team, is apparent.

In order to call out, too, you have to get a little more specific than "youse guys over there" really. A general "That crowd spoke too soon" is not the same as saying "When peace13 (I use you only as an example, it is not my wish to pick on you) said "Blah blah blah" he/she was (fill in insult) and (fill in second insult)." That's a call out.

[Boomerang Diddle]

19. Unless there's a poster called Naysayers

I don't see the problem.

Besides, those who don't think every breath Obama takes is some right-wing/DLC conspiracy against the left get "called out" all the time.

[Fire1]

55. As they should. n/t

[dionysus]

75. so i take it you're a self identified naysayer...

:rofl:

[WeDidIt]

15. I'm definitely feeling a lot better about this issue

This was the one and only major difference I've had with Barack Obama since his election to teh highest office in the land.

I, for one, am PROUD of him with his openness to investigate this matter further.

[damntexdem]

20. Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?

Let's hope this does catch the real bad boys and girls.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Are you fucking joking?

Obama did something wrong.

People said, "Hey, that's wrong."

Obama said, "Okay, I take it back."

And you view that sequence of events as a rebuke to the people who said it was wrong????

Zombies.

[Supersedeas]

24. From the beginning, it would have been obstruction of justice for him to do otherwise.

The President got the message.

[Beetwasher]

25. How Do You Know That??

That's pretty presumptive.

What you say may be true, but it's also just as likely that this was always what he had in mind. He did release the torture memos after all. And his remarks regarding not pursuing prosecutions of the torturers who acted in "good faith" were ALWAYS interpreted by MANY to NOT rule out prosecuting the decision makers.

You presume to know his mind. I make no such presumptions.

[Egnever]

28. What he is saying is absolutely not true

Obama never said anything different than what he said today. Todays statement only clarified what he said when he released the memos. Not one thing changed in his position. You just cant read I wont prosecute anyone into what he didnt say anymore.

[Beetwasher]

30. I'm Willing To Give Some People The Benefit Of The Doubt

Because of Emannuel's confusing statements.

But you are probably correct.

In any event, it's presumptuous of people to claim Obama decided to leave prosecutions open ONLY because of pressure from the left. There's no way to know that.

[Egnever]

32. Agreed emanuel stuck his foot in it

but obamas original statement on the matter from which all this has sprung was very specific and glaring in what it left out.

Hard to say for sure what really went on because of rhams statement but axlerod was on that same day contradicting rahm so I am sticking to the idea that it was never Obamas intent to try to shut down prosecutions from the get go. Besides hehas been saying almost the same exact thing since he started campaigning for the job. I find it kind of hard to believe he all of a sudden about faced twice in one week.

[Beetwasher]

36. I Agree

n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. It might not have been pressure from the left.

It might have been the delayed recogniton that his comments compromised the integrity of the office of the Attorney General.

Is that more satisfying?

He made a clear mistake. He will correct it.

[Beetwasher]

35. What Was His Mistake???

I still don't see what you think was his mistake?

The original statement about prosecutions, as far as I was concerned NEVER ruled out prosecuting the decision makers. So, as far as I'm concerned, it was always his intent to allow prosecutions to go forward.

The only "mistake" I see was Emmanuel putting his foot in his mouth and either speaking out of turn or mis-speaking or something to that effect.

I don't understand how you think his comments compromised the integrity of the AG. If people misunderstood him, or misinterpreted his comments, that's not necessarily his fault, but he clarified it so there could be no misinterpretation.

[mvd]

53. If true, those intentions are noble, too

I prefer that he also listened, but that would be consistent with his stances on lawsuits carried over from the Bush administration. This time, it works out for good.

As for the statements, I don't fault myself for listening to Emanuel when he's so close to the President. And other statements didn't exactly contradict.

[Occam Bandage]

64. His comments compromised nothing.

You mistakenly interpreted his comments as such. You were wrong. Man up, admit it, and move on.

[Fire1]

27. Yep!

[Luminous Animal]

37. Exactly.

We are supposed to ignore the change in rhetoric and believe that this is what Obama had in mind all along.

[Boomerang Diddle]

45. No.

You see, while some of you were stomping your feet and whining, many of us understood how the process was playing out. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to headlines we sat back and in a calm, cool manner took in ALL the information that was available before deciding the world was coming to an end. Patience is a virtue. You should try it sometime.

[Occam Bandage]

57. He didn't "do something wrong" here.

Instead, he failed to do what you believe is right quite as quickly as you wanted it. The fact that you took a weekend of deliberation to be "doing something wrong" is a bit zombish in and of itself.

[cottonseed]

59. So Obama's statement was due to your screetching and whining?

Obama hadn't yet done a thing.

Career victimists squeal, "Obama's a torturer".

Obama makes his statement today.

Blowhard calls people Zombies.

[Occam Bandage]

63. I am eternally surprised at the extent to which people

can conflate what they imagine might happen with what is has actually happened. I am eternally dismayed at the ferocity with which they desire to credit themselves for the discrepancy between their ravings and the real world. Rather than accept the possibility that they were mistaken, they prefer to believe that they really did have it all figured out, but then when they exposed the secret plans on an internet forum thread grabbing maybe a couple hundred eyeballs, the government screeched to an immediate halt and reversed its plans completely.

[Lyric]

74. It wasn't just DU, you know.

There was outrage all over the netroots. I submit that while it's impossible to know for sure, the theory that pressure from the left *did* have some affect on his decision to "clarify" is as likely to be true as the "He was planning it all along!" theory.

I think the idea of a President listening to his people is a GOOD thing, and knowing that he responded to outrage from his constituents with a modification in policy would only make him even more of a fantastic President than he already is. It is not weakness to do the right thing, no matter HOW the right-wingers try to paint it. Even if the netroots had something to to with his decision, it doesn't make him weak and it doesn't mean that he "caved"--it means that he listened. What a wonderful change from what we've had for the past thirty-odd years. Imagine--a President who actually listens.

Now THAT is change I can believe in.

[Two Americas]

22. good

I am glad we have been speaking out about this, then. If no one did, there is very little likelihood that it would ever be addressed.

Seems to me this validates the "naysayers."

That is what I say now. It is what I said yesterday, and it is what I will say tomorrow.


...

[bigjohn16]

23. It's great news.

The only information I had came from the Press Secretary and the Chief of Staff two very good sources in my opinion. I'm glad he sharpened his administrations stance on the torture investigation issue and I hope the letters and phone calls made by many helped make the decision a little easier. For now I'm cautiously optimistic.

[sniffa]

31. I think your font isn't obnoxious enough

[Boomerang Diddle]

38. Font poutrage! That's a new one.

I hope my choice of font is not too distressing for you. I feel your pain and will keep that in mind next time I am making the extremely important decision of which font to use.

[sniffa]

47. It needs to be bigger, bolder

Go big or go home.

[Boomerang Diddle]

48. Thanks! Your opinion is soooooo important to me......

SARCASM



.

[sniffa]

49. As is yours to me......

:sarcasm:

[chill_wind]

33. Hey Boomerang Diddle

Where you been?

Greatest Page:




BREAKING NEWS FROM MSNBC: Obama will leave prosecutions up to AG Holder
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8360402&mesg_id=8360402

BREAKING NEWS: Obama leaves door to open to prosecutions over Bush-era interrogations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3841855

BREAKING NEWS FROM MSNBC: Obama will leave prosecutions up to AG Holder
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8360402

AP: Obama open to Hill probe of harsh interrogations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5504179

Admin Walks Back Rahm Remarks: WH WILL Pursue Torture Policy Lawyers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8360114

NYT: Pressure Grows to Investigate Interrogations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5502971

Pressure Grows to Investigate Interrogations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8359834

Breaking on Rachel - Holder considering torture investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5500285

Isikoff Rachel Maddow: Holder DOJ May Appoint Prosecutor Torture!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x300181

DOJ considering appointment of special prosecutor re: torture
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5500401

[Boomerang Diddle]

42. Hey Chill Wind

:hi:

[chill_wind]

50. It's **very ** positive news, but maybe it's not a bad idea

to give people a little more time to process and embrace it of their own volition. We may have few examples at either extremes, but I'd love to think people who care about the subject of torture and war crimes as more than a cudgel to beat up President Obama OR, conversely, to simply harangue more agnostic fellow DUers could do it just this one time. Maybe not, though.

[NoSheep]

39. Oh goodie! Is this the thread where I get to say I TOLD YOU SO???

Oh yes! A sweet day for us all. Especially those with no faith in the genius that is Barack Obama! :woohoo:

[nichomachus]

46. I'm not a naysayer, but these threads are

getting extremely tiresome. There are about 35 of them on the Greatest Page right now. They're really trashing DU and making it not worth coming here.

[ladjf]

51. I say that this is very good news. I never was a "naysayer" but,

I was very puzzled by his earlier position on this subject. I was beginning to think that he might be somewhat of a "weeny" i.e. coward.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. I say the White House counted phone calls

and understood that Rahm did not and could not be elected. I think that the testimony in Congress today about the deaths already classified as murder by our own investigators had something to do with it as well. 57 detainee deaths are classified as murder already. Murder. So the talk about 'looking forward' became very disturbing when the testimony is about mass murder.

[Two Americas]

56. that is how it works

The politicians are elected representatives, not corporate CEOs that we merely select and then get out of the way and let them run things.

The definition of a good politician is one who listens and responds to the constituents. A great politician sways public opinion, and then responds to it. Under no circumstances does it make any sense to be quiet and merely trust that somehow the politician who was elected is "a good person" and will "do the right thing."


...

[BlooInBloo]

62. The funniest part will be watching them never ever ever admit to being wrong.

EDIT: They'll start making shit up with locutions like "but what I really meant was..." and "but he didn't WANT to..." and "It's only because of us..." and stupid shit like that. It's gonna be a riot to see.

[paulk]

65. what's your point?

people should just shut up and not put any pressure on the Obama administration?

is that what you're trying to say?

perhaps it was pressure from his constituents that caused Obama to leave the door open

[jonestonesusa]

66. I don’t know if I’m a naysayer, but there’s reason here for concern and criticism.

Maybe a recap is needed.

Pres. Obama responded to the FOIA lawsuit by declassifying the torture memos - a good move in my opinion - but he also distinguished rank and file CIA interrogators from the higher-ups who provided legal justifications. There was plenty of anger, even rage, expressed on DU and elsewhere about the possibility that the administration would exclude some from prosecution without a public inquiry, and I can understand why. I do appreciate that the president is concerned about morale and effectiveness at the CIA in an era where secret operations are still being exercised in the war on terror, but on the other hand, the president should be more careful not to overreach and imply that criminal actions will be excused and not investigated.

It’s as simple as that – Pres. Obama has to strike a difficult balance on this issue, but his Democratic base will not stand for a whitewash, and he knows that. Rahm Emmanuel’s ham-handed interview on Sunday added fuel to the fire. So the President backtracked with his recent statement, as well he ought to have done. There's plenty of reason to think that public pressure was one factor in why he had to address the issue again.

From Pres. Obama’s original statement on releasing the torture memos (April 16, I think):
“In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”

From Pres. Obama’s revised statement from this week (April 21):
"For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted,"

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that…I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there."

“Not prejudging” is a good idea. Putting forth a patriotic defense of harsh interrogation techniques where war crimes may have been committed – not so good.

[LittleBlue]

68. So, he backpedaled. Sounds like a victory for those who bitched

and moaned about it.

Glad he reversed himself.

[Number23]

70. Why are so many people in this thread alluding that this only happened as a result of

their "crying out?"

What in the world is wrong with some of the people here?? Obama has NEVER said that he was against prosecutions. And who here genuinely believes that large groups of Americans were "crying out" about torture when so many are unable to pay their mortgages?? Obama's approval ratings are the highest of any president of the last 30 years at this time in their presidencies. What, the 19 people who complained about this changed his mind?? Unbelievable!

It is nothing to admit that perhaps you misread the situation and you are happy with these new developments. But this "oh, well it was the people complaining that made him change his mind" when everyone that can read knows that's not likely what happened is just asinine. I just can't stand this type of dishonesty. There is going to be sooo much this man is going to do to piss us off. And if you are committed (as some appear to be) to jumping on everything he does as proof that he is "Bush Lite" at least have the guts to own up to it when you are proven wrong. We don't even know yet if you HAVE been proven wrong. This is politics; anything can change on a dime and it probably will.

Being honest and being fair is the absolute least that we can all do. And this suggestion that it was the outcry from The People that somehow "changed Obama's mind" (does he even seem like the type of man who could have his mind changed that damn easily??!) just strikes me as extraordinarily dishonest.

[jonestonesusa]

76. I disagree - Obama did say he was against prosecutions

if interrogations were done in good faith. Again, the quote from Obama on April 16:

“In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”

The president offers direct assurance to some interrogators that they will not be prosecuted. We can debate on the wisdom of that assurance or on whether the president has a legal role in preventing prosecutions, but it's clear that he opposes prosecution for some. At least, that's what he said.

And there are clearly more than 19 people who reacted to his statement. After all, the administration was in the midst of settling an ACLU court action. There have probably been more than 19 editorials opposing his stance. And then there's those members of the public who disagreed with his statement. It's certainly your right to agree with the president's approach to this issue so far; others do not.

[Number23]

77. Obama is referring to the people who were given the green light by their commanders

and told that what they were doing was NOT illegal. Those are the ones he is referring to as not "subject to prosecution." He has never said that he was against prosecution of anyone else.

And there is no way that I believe that any editorials led to this alleged "change of heart". You must be joking. And as I stated, the public outcry on this has been muted at best. Any heat that Obama got on this came from members of Congress and human rights activists which makes perfect sense. The American public has much bigger things to deal with right now. Putting food on the table and keeping your job are of far greater consequence to the average person than prosecuting war crimes. That's just common sense.

[psychopomp]

71. This thread is based on a false presumption

I don't think many people shocked by the stance of President Obama vis a vis the "War on Terror" and its abrogation of citizen's privacy and Constitutional guarantees ever judged him by anything other than his actions. When President Obama failed to live up to expectations, many people were feeling that they had been sold a false bill of goods.

Now that he has found an avenue towards some modicum of rebuke for the crimes of the previous mis-administration he can proceed in a manner that engenders the least criticism from either the Right or the Left. It hardly promotes enthusiasm on my part, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

I will continue to withhold judgment.

[depakid]

72. Results speak for themselves

Word are empty.

Bold headlines, shallower still.

[Bragi]

73. The inference here seems to be...

That loyal Obamists are to be commended when they remain silent when faced with administration actions or decisions to which they are opposed.

To which I respond:

The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures. -- Junius

Disagreement is allowed, and is not disloyalty.

In this case, it's hard to imagine that the pronounced disagreement of his supporters didn't influence how the administration shifted -- and properly so -- on this issue.

- B