“I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture. And I’m gonna make sure that we don’t torture.”

That’s part of your problem right there–not even Obama , in the face of overwhelming proof, is willing to admit that America does torture.

Pastormaker: That’s a method of rhetorically defining torture as unamerican.

Absolutely pastormaker.
More to the point, whatever you are willing to pretend only started with Bush and ends with him, you will ensure does not end once he leaves office.

Try finding a book on US torture at Amazon and you’ll need to pretend really hard not to notice that most of them reference this occurring on a timescale that puts the last 7 years as the last of many previous chapters.

On the face of it, Obama would appear to be talking about regaining that moral stature the US enjoyed when it was outsourcing it’s torture to the murder machines of the middle east and central asia under the previous administration.

I don’t know what Bush’s position on rendition of terrorism suspects was before the 2000 election, but Gore is on record as being more gung hu for it than Clinton was. I believe “they have no rights” was the quote.

That’s a method of rhetorically defining torture as unamerican.

So when this is the exact same, single, solitary statement Bush has repeatedly made on the subject for 5 years — that America doesn’t torture, — you would agree with that ?

What a beautifully profound short story that is. I’ve always loved it.

The reality is that none of us can actually see the child in the basement, only the rumors and the smuggled photos. We are, most of us, blissfully unaware of the evil that supposedly keeps us safe.

Omelas is Salem O backwards, the capital of Oregon where Ms. Le Guin lives. Wikipedia has her living in Portland but I don’t think that’s true.

Nope, she does live in Portland.

The quote from William James that she cites as the origin of Omelas:

Or if the hypothesis were offered us of a world in which Messrs. Fourier’s and Bellamy’s and Morris’s utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture, what except a specifical and independent sort of emotion can it be which would make us immediately feel, even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain?

[

Right, because if there’s one thing the wingnuts have taught us, it’s that context never matters.

Anyone else up for a nice, hearty breakfast of the is-ought problem?

What context am I missing here other than 2 politicians have both said the exact same, false thing and one of them is offered a generous defense for it ?

Yeah… tell us some more about these wingnuts and their partisan bullshit Randy. It’ll look convincing.

BTW… regarding Mr Obama’s comments on closing GTMO, I watched Torturing Democracy the other night. You can watch it online via the NSArchives or PBS.

It should be kind of a hint just what problem closing Gitmo that solves and doesn’t when you hear the detainee arriving at GTMO tell the others that the worst is now over for him. And it was. Arriving at GTMO was the first step in him being returned home.

The reason being that he arrived there after being tortured in an undisclosed location as on off-the-books prisoner for an undisclosed amount of time. That location, that made GTMO look like a reprieve, isn’t being closed. It isn’t being investigated, disclosed or even discussed.

Seriously, when they decided to take the senators down on their tropical Cuban vacation to see how well fed the prisoners were, there’s a reason they were shown GTMO and not the other anonymous black holes. Shutting GTMO just leaves the black holes.

Great post, Tbogg.

@Kilo: Just what is your point? That Obama didn’t go far enough last night? That he should start tossing bombs at GW Bush, start threatening him with war crimes trials?

One step at a time.

How are you going to threaten him with war crimes trials ? They were pardoned by congress back in 2006.

As for you not knowing what my point is, was the first thing I wrote here confusing ? If so ask me to explain something specific, I’m not going to write it out again.

Here is an example of context. From remarks by Obama, Washington DC, August 1, 2007:

This brings me to the fourth step in my strategy: I will make clear that the days of compromising our values are over.

Major General Paul Eaton had a long and distinguished career serving this country. It included training the Iraqi Army. After Abu Ghraib, his senior Iraqi advisor came into his office and said: “You have no idea how this will play out on the streets of Baghdad and the rest of the Arab world. How can this be?” This was not the America he had looked up to.

As the counter-insurgency manual reminds us, we cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side. But because the Administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies. Because the Administration cast aside international norms that reflect American values, we are less able to promote our values. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again.

Seems Ursula is to writering what the chimp is to oratering.

Here is an example of context. From remarks by Obama, Washington DC, August 1, 2007

No, that’s not context. That’s just another statement from a politician telling the US public what he has to. No different than Bush.

Major General Paul Eaton had a long and distinguished career serving this country. … After Abu Ghraib … This was not the America he had looked up to.

Well this would raise the question WhenTF he joined up, given that there’s been no recent decade in which the “not-America” on display there didn’t do something exceeding the abhorrence of this in the name of national security.

I’ve heard a lot of people claim “this is not America”. Really ? Re-read what’s been done at Abu Ghraib to the insurgents there and tell me this is beyond the line in the sand that disemboweling insurgents in interrogations in Vietnam set as an acceptable standard for prisoner treatment.

Either plead ignorance or say you think this is something new and exceptional. There’s no 3rd option where you get to claim you believe these statements are something other than a lie meant to placate you.

As I already pointed out, when Obama says things like this….

When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again.

… he is either flat out lying to you or talking about a time when neither you nor your parents walked this earth.

This isn’t “context”, it’s just the same lie from a more eloquent voice. More to the point, the voice you want to believe. So the right-wingers believed it when Bush said it and you’ll buy the same line when Obama says it. Who’s that leave ?

Like I said, if you want to pretend that what didn’t start with Bush will end with him then you will ensure that it doesn’t. You give no incentive for Obama to end these policies. Come inauguration day the right wingers sure as hell aren’t going to oppose policies they supported under Bush.

So Obama’s said that he wants to shut ONE of the DOZENS of secretive detention facilities for detainees. The one that was chosen as the public viewing area, where prisoners were brought when they were to be reintroduced to the world after years in the ether. If you are placated by this then so be it. That’s the kind of person you are.

So Obama’s said that he wants to end the torture practices while not once mentioning anything about shutting down the renditions program, torture by non-military personnel (remember the McCain amendment anyone? The one that had no bearing on any of the CIA interrogations actually making the news?) or employing 3rd parties to do that on behalf of the US, as the policy the day before Bush took office. If you believe that absence of commitment is reassuring, then so be it. That’s the kind of person you are.

Easily placated and willing to reuse that memory hole come inauguration day. Hey, it’s worked before. It’s how the US has operated a torture training school for 60 years with bipartisan support.

I might believe Obama, but his employing James Brennan has me worried on this score. Brennan was one of the main reasons for Obama’s FISA reversal. Glenn Greenwald has an article this morning concerning Brennan and Obama

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html

According to Ron Suskind,there’s a cell block in the basement of the White House,and it has been used to interrogate “suspicious persons”. That shit needs dismantelling asap.

Thanks for linking Greenwald’s piece, BillCinSD.

So, Kilo, is there anything that Obama (or anyone) could say or do to satisfy you? Or are you just ranting to hear yourself rant?

Pastormaker, you should have finished reading Obama’s quote: “And I’m gonna make sure that we don’t torture.” Now it’s possible that Obama will be just like George Bush (a liar) but I don’t think it’s fair to condemn him for what he does in office before he even takes office.

We’ve already been down this lane a couple of times: those of us who have been and remain skeptical that Obama can deliver as implied by the sheer rapture among some of his followers are supposed to Shut The Fuck Up.

First, we were supposed to STFU about FISA, clean coal etc. etc. because “he was just trying to get elected.” So we did. Now we’re supposed to shut up because “he’s only just been elected.” So we do. Then, it’ll be “shut up, he’s doing the best he can with that opposition/clueless congress/whatever”. And if we do, it’ll soon be time for his re-election campaign (guessing that kicks of in, what, November of ‘09?) at which point we’ll be asked to shut up with our questions and criticism of his policies and choices because “we wouldn’t want to get a Republican elected, would we”?

Of course he needs a chance to get his shit together, and there’ll be room for some mistakes and compromise. But. Jack Brennan? Lieberman? Leaving the White House politicized as Rove left it? Those are not trifling matters, those are choices that indicate just how much of a moderate he is. And for those of us who are hoping for something a little more, dare I say “progressive”, it’s worrying. We’re not just ranting to hear ourselves rant, we’re sounding our concern now so that, perhaps, the message will reach Obama as he goes about making his initial decisions that some of us want more than just a change of rhetoric.

Like it or not, since the Wurlitzer and the pundits are forever barking from the far right and, thus, inexorably pulling things their way, I think there’s a need for some noise on the left to balance things out, no? If Obama really thinks, along with some moderate Dem’s around here, that we’re just ranting loons, then he can ignore us all he wants. What I don’t get is all the concern about our rants at this point?

Raising concerns about who Obama appoints is not ranting. Expressing the belief that he may not be as liberal (or left, if you prefer) as we might like is not ranting. But claiming (as Kilo seems to suggest) that Obama stated commitment to ending the Bush administration’s policy of torture is just a pack of lies is ranting, especially at this point, when the man hasn’t even taken office.

I share your disappointment with Obama’s vote on FISA. I have no illusions that the man is perfect. We will need to watch him and hold him accountable. But let’s not attribute Bush’s failings to him, especially now. I prefer to live in the reality-based world, where conclusions come after the evidence, not before.

I’m with WhaleSpit.

I’ll bet you no one ever said: STFU about FISA. If they were anything like me, it was more like “The FISA capitulation REALLY sucks — and now what? McCain? Nader? Sitting it out?” None of those options were viable in the least, if you are honest with yourself. Plus, there were other things that still mattered just as much and Obama is/was better than the opponent on almost all of them.

Obama is an OVERWHELMING improvement on the current administration and, even still, represents a moderate response to it. But it seems that while accusing him of being a sell-out, or, mystifyingly, a continuation of the Bush Administration, YOU are the ones who think he is some combination of Superman, Jesus and Gandhi.

No one is asking for a suspension of disbelief, but a little perspective wouldn’t hurt. Especially if you believe that America has always been compromised — then what the fuck is Obama supposed to represent to you?

Actually no. The story above is a summary, not LeGuin’s actual text.

She is a very fine writer.

Point well taken. But I *have* been told to STFU about FISA by die-hard Obama friends, and it struck me as an odd stance. Thus, my beef is really only with the Obama psychophants who somehow continue to see constructive criticism and/or the voicing of opinions that differ from Obama’s as “treason” to the glorified new path upon which we’re about to embark. It’s like we’re jeopardizing it by suggesting that we’d like him to be even bolder in his approach to Change than he has indicated thru his choices so far. This is more like it, by the way, and this, too.

So, as for that last bit in your missive: “what the fuck is Obama supposed to represent to you?” — Change I Can Believe In. As long he keeps changing things even a little bit, I’ll keep believing we can get closer to a more “uncompromised” America. Not quite there, but closer.

It’s like we’re jeopardizing it by suggesting that we’d like him to be even bolder in his approach to Change than he has indicated thru his choices so far.

But you’re projecting what your definition of “change” is and what the “change” Obama campaigned on. His change is “rising above partisanship”. It’s not something I particularly care about, but that’s pretty undeniable. To that end he’s making some good feints and some bad — but in both cases, he hasn’t yet done anything.

And that last part about what Obama was supposed to represent was for Kilo, who obviously feels there’s nothing about America worth being optimistic about or anything at all which makes it different. Which is fine, but makes it difficult to understand why he’d bother feeling so betrayed by Obama’s promise not to torture.

We’re pretty ignorant about our history. That’s undeniable. But you see it on the left too. The icons we hold up — FDR, RFK, whoever — were wildly criticized at the time by the left for not doing enough or saying the right things at the right time. RFK was a big proponent, in his groovy-civil rights paragon stage, of welfare reform. FDR was, at heart, a fiscal conservative, who ran against Hoover’s wasteful expenditures. Just to name two examples.

So far, to my eyes, Obama has done nothing that goes against what he said he would do. And when (not if) he does, as President, it’ll be very disappointing. And then what?

Agree completely. Bagram’s far worse.

Obama is already talking about the need for a national security court, which is code for preventive detention.

I watched the film this morning. It’s available here.
http://torturingdemocracy.org/

Thus, my beef is really only with the Obama psychophants who somehow continue to see constructive criticism and/or the voicing of opinions that differ from Obama’s as “treason” to the glorified new path upon which we’re about to embark.

The Naderites and Hillary deadenders keep yapping these “Obama psychophants”, but I never could find any in real life. What I could find were people, like myself, who knew that Job #1 was to get the man elected. That’s why tilting at the FISA windmill was a dumb idea for Obama. He made the right decision.

Let me direct Kilo et al to what might be the greatest blog post of all time. Tbogg wrote it just for you (and I still look at our dogs and think “rumbly-tumbly pupperoos”).

Look, how is it hard for anyone to understand that Obama’s statement , when taken in complete context, is nothing more than the same, tired claim of American exceptionalism.

Don’t insult my intelligence by claiming America’s use of torture began with the Bush administration. You know it’s not true. I know it’s not true. Obama knows it’s not true.

America hasand does stand for torture. It’s stood for it again and again and again.

Thanks TBogg.

digg

But only W got it regularly on the front page.

I can never understand these highfallutin’ stories with layers of meaning. Where are the spaceships?

Um, I guess waiting to see what Obama actually does is an unacceptable idea? We have to argue about it right bloody now?

let’s not forget Prison Ships

Be prepared.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=758awAebvzI

OT but in response to Jane’s email I just got re Leiberman, Barbara Boxer’s fax is (202) 224-0454. It often gets through when calls/emails back up. Good idea is few words written with big, black sharpie pen.

Obama says he will make it a priority to shut down Guantanamo. That’s a serious promise, and if he holds to it, kudos to him (if he doesn’t, he’ll certainly hear from a lot of us). Saying it that way puts his political reputation on the line.

Re torture, yes the US has done or condoned it before. But never to extent as under W, and never involving people so high up in an administration. Yes you can read Obamas words on that as you do, but let’s see what he actually does. That’s what counts here. And you can’t fault him for not making a detailed policy statement in an interview like that. He’s clearly a good poker player, and there are lots of reasons for not showing his hand just yet.

You are right. We threw Vietnamese out of helicopters. Obama is one man. He gives the order “No Torture”. Who knows if the CIA agent wherever will obey it. Lots of people get self esteem from American exceptionalism because they are Americans. If Obama ran against American exceptionalism he might not have won. Things won’t get fixed overnight, but they will be better than they were.

Sorry, but every American politician, including guys like Sanders and Kucinich, have to pay lip service to “American exceptionalism” (which seems to be a fancy way of saying “Americans think they’re better than everyone else, just as everyone else thinks they are better than everyone else”).

In fact, acting as if America was, is and always will be the biggest evil that ever stalked the world stage is in itself a form of “American exceptionalism”.

Understood. It just seems that since the election, we’ve all turned into a pack of snarling dogs over every little hint of what Obama might possibly do on January 21. Hillary at State? There’s been cries of foul from one corner or another for each and every leak and rumor…and I’ve seen damned few actual appointments as of yet.

Seems to me we need to tackle the realities we’re actually looking at, first, in the manner that we’ve become so skilled at doing. Pressure Congress about Holy Joe. Seriously work for the races that are still “out there”. Throw our progressive weight behind the rallies and boycotts against LDS and Prop 8. It’s all well and good to keep Obama’s feet to the fire, but it isn’t his fireplace yet.

Obama represents to me the living definition of change you can believe in. First he believes that FISA is so bad that he will filibuster. Believing in change, as he does, he changes his mind and votes for the thing. One assumes he will work for peace in the middle east. It appears he has changed his mind about the definition of peace with his embrace of Emnanuel, and now Clinton, and so, peace and Iran and all you Muslims can go suck an egg. Or two.

Then he seeks to embrace to bipartisanship a la Lincoln. It is hard to believe that he recognizes that the times aren’t only achanging, they have changed big time. The circumstances facing the country today are markedly different from those facing Lincoln. Space and nukes, to name but two. What seemed like wisdom in Lincoln’s time in holding your enemies close may in our day translate more to letting the fox guard the henhouse.

There are plenty of fair to middlin democrats hanging around that he can name to this position or that instead of replublicans. If he feels differently, then he should have run as an independent.

This isn’t ranting, it’s a real fear that the Israeli hard right will clean out our man’s clock, not to mention the local nuts he so wants to make nice with. I view the current examples of change as rank pandering.

Richardson has way more credentials to be SS than Clinton does. What, does he want to marginalize his enemy or is he seeking to placate the women who continue to feel wronged? If the former, what happened to country first? If the latter, why, that’s only more change we can believe in.

I am really grateful for the fact that he has opened the door for women and latinos to continue progressing, but I sure am beginning to worry about the price yet to be paid. And, by the way, what does he have against marriage for all who want to enter into that fearsome relationship?

Exactly. But the people who are going after him the hardest never intended to cut him any slack anyway.

From what I can see, this is because they are

1) reflexively, unthinkingly cynical, or because

2) he wasn’t their first choice (he wasn’t my first choice, either — but we lucked out because my first choice, Edwards, had adultery issues that the press was set to spring on him once he won the nomination), or because

3) they see him as too centrist even as he’s being painted by the press and Republicans as Noam Chomsky’s younger brother; or because

4) they’re extreme-lefties who were taught that democracy and elections are shams and that participating in them preserves the very capitalist structures it is their sworn duty to destroy. (Don’t laugh — I used to chat online with folks on a Socialist/Communist listserv back in the day, and when the Socialists and Communists weren’t arguing over who was the most pure ideologically, they were doing things like ripping into Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders for being fascist pigs, and even attacked poor David McReynolds of the War Resisters League, the gentlest soul alive, for allegedly giving legitimacy to America’s hopelessly corrupt and evil capitalistic system by running for president. Meanwhile, the extreme righties love to participate in elections, so they can subvert democracy. That’s why they fund all those think tanks and 527s. That’s why the Olin Foundation was formed.)

Nah, the micro-analysis of every Obama utterance or gesture started long before the election. It’s part of what separates progressives from lower life forms, such as Republicans. We don’t march in lockstep and question authority at every opportunity. It’s alright as long as we are careful not to take ourselves too seriously. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t take the issues seriously. Torture and unlawful detention is a travesty under any circumstance.

Good post! Don’t know why I bother to argue, sometimes (actually, I do, it’s that many more people lurk than post )

I agree, PW. What we’re seeing is the opposite of Monday morning quarterbacking… call it Friday morning quarterbacking. Condemning the team’s performance before the game has even begun.

Well, right now, the only “information” we have on Hillary’s alleged SoSness are leaks and media appearances by Hillary’s surrogates.

The frenzied tail-chasing over Obama’s possible Cabinet picks is astounding. There were two Recommended diaries on DKos the other day. One was pretty much “OH NOES OBAMA IS MAKING COLLIN PETERSON AG SECRETARY!!!“. The other one was pretty much “OH NOES OBAMA IS MAKING DENNIS WOLFF AG SECRETARY!!!” Except that, on the only org chart I’ve seen that could possibly be from anywhere near the horse’s mouth, the names of Hillary Clinton, Collin Peterson, and/or Dennis Wolff are nowhere to be seen. Got that?

“tilting at the FISA windmill was a dumb idea for Obama. He made the right decision” So, really, that silly 4th Amendment is really just a windmill at this point? Sounds to me like the Republicans and the terrorists have won, then, if Mr. Change made the right choice by conceding defeat on that “minor” issue.

Shadowstalker: “waiting to see what Obama actually does is an unacceptable idea?” Depends how badly you want to influence what he does, I suppose. If this is all supposed to remain a largely academic discussion (”thx to the grassroot involvement of millions, the right guy got elected; now let’s kick back and watch the show”), then sure, we can wait until his presidency is over and then go over the whole thing and assign him points and demerits for his choices. But given how flexible he appears to be, if you’d like to help steer the decision making process by voicing an opinion, then sooner is probably better than later. After all, if he doesn’t hear any noise from the progressive side of the party, it’d be “the right decision” for him to ignore any policy to the left of, say, Steny Hoyer or Ken Salazar, and simply move ahead with a moderate centrist package a la Bill Clinton.

One assumes he will work for peace in the middle east. It appears he has changed his mind about the definition of peace with his embrace of Emnanuel, and now Clinton, and so, peace and Iran and all you Muslims can go suck an egg.

When the Chief of Staff decides foreign policy, I’ll treat your concerns with more respect, until then, you are talking out of your ass.

But since I can’t resist being hostile to your assumptions: when Emmanuel did policy work for the Clintons, he was one of the key players behind the Olso agreements.

Here’s someone who hates the Emmanuel appointment — from the Jewish right:

The Israeli newspaper Israel National News reports that Obama hired a number of Jewish advisors who are quite critical of Israel, are anti-Israel (yes, some Jews are critical of Israel), and are in fantasyland about the Saudi Arabian peace intentions. Those include Dennis Ross, Dan Kurtzer, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Tony McPeak, Susan Rice, Martin Indyk, and several more. These spell serious problems for Israel.

Then there is Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emmanuel. He was the key person in the Clinton administration to make Oslo happen in 1992 and 1993. So we have a group of Jewish advisors, some of them Jewish, who are unfriendly to Israel’s settlement policies in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank and eager to divide Jerusalem.

She’s obviously a zealot and an idiot. What’s your excuse? Seriously, is it that you don’t know these things, or is it that you are terrified of Jews? Or do you blame Emmanuel for his father, or do you simply have no FUCKING IDEA what a Chief of Staff does?

Beyond that, Muslims who you presume to speak for, are, throughout the world relieved or even very happy that he’s president (of course for your point to mean anything, you’d have to be able to understand the differences between “Arabs” and “Muslims”, which is something you have decided to conflate for whatever reason.) and who seem to be, sensibly, waiting for Obama to actually take office before making a judgement.

I got it better than you might think. I don’t buy the excesses on dailykos – and I think Markos has a ways to go before he reaches higher than Nader’s ankles. But on Hillary, there’s way more out there than her surrogates. On Obama, There’s the Hamilton Project, FISA, the adulation factor – I’m sorry, but the excitement I felt – and I’m old enough to know better – began to fade with the genuflecting to AIPAC, and I don’t think I’m overstating it.

I well remember how some on this site were all agog with Pelosi at the beginning. I see similarities with Obabma. At a time when we should be not cynical, but not Tinkerbellites either, we should recognize that he is bending to the center-right, and that what began in mid-campaign is now progressing rapidly. If that is ranting, count me among the ranters.

A real measured response, JayBrida. I don’t much care if you respect my comments or not, but I can assure you that talking out of my ass is better than kissing another’s. Grow up.

Jesus B. Ochoa, El Paso, Texas

So, really, that silly 4th Amendment is really just a windmill at this point? Sounds to me like the Republicans and the terrorists have won, then, if Mr. Change made the right choice by conceding defeat on that “minor” issue.

Do your research. The FISA bill in question was political theatre. The 4th and 6th Amendments were already dead, killed by the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Moreover, no one in the Dem leadership was on board: not Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, etc. Not a single one. So what you were asking Obama to do was stand up, all by his lonesome, and accomplish nothing except giving Hannity and Limbaugh something to yap about for the next month.

Here’s an excellent Kos diary, now posted on Obama’s web site, about the FISA bill in question. Read it.

Excellent summary, to which I would add MHO that these people are just as useless and brain-dead as the right-wing zombies at Palin rallies. But that, as it is popular to say in these parts, is just me.

btw, a dirty little secret about FISA that Greenwald and his ilk never mention — those lawsuits were going NOWHERE, immunity or no immunity. They were DOA on standing and other issues. Tilting at windmills indeed.

A real measured response, JayBrida. I don’t much care if you respect my comments or not, but I can assure you that talking out of my ass is better than kissing another’s. Grow up.

Point out where I’m wrong. If I am, I’ll admit it.

But if you want to lecture people about maturity, let’s talk about maturity. Does a mature person decide because a jewish guy is Chief-of-Staff that Muslims are now shit out of luck? Is that how it works? If Jew then anti-Muslim? Because that’s the case you’ve made. I find it ignorant. I carry no brief for Emmanuel, but he’s clearly much more than the stereotype you’ve decided on.

So, to show your deep and abiding independence, you’ve decided to announce the fact that you’d make shit up in order to prove it?

Mine’s not a measured response because there’s nothing in your response to measure it against.

*G* *G*

Most oft quoted source: “Two senior Democrat officials . . .”

*G*

Love it when you roll for the sane, PW . . . keep on rolling! *G*

wow Tbogg… great post. I had never heard of that story.

Nice Le Guin reference. Reminds me that I’m still trying to find the early 80’s film version of Lathe of Heaven (the one for which no original masters exist anyomre).

Wow, talk about touching a nerve here, eh? “[…] no one in the Dem leadership was on board: not Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, etc. […] So what you were asking Obama to do was stand up […]” — yes, I expected him to do the right thing and lead while all the headless sheep in DC (Reid’s, Pelosi’s and Hoyer’s is not the yardstick by which I measure anything) were busy covering their ass by doing largely what they did when they decided to back the Iraq war: getting behind the administration’s agenda because the pundits and the MSM had determined it was the only way to go. But remember, that whole “Change” thing? Getting away from Beltway business as usual? Showing leadership? That’s what I expect from someone who wants to be elected leader.

But now I learn that FISA was just political theater?!? Silly me. I thought it was a small chance to chip away at the Patriot Act and roll back some of the more obvious excesses of the administration’s agenda — you know, some of that “Change” stuff…

I caught Rush bellowing about Gitmo today. He was huffing that if we close Gitmo then we’ll have to give the prisoners trials or something and if we give them trials some of them might be found not guilty and if some of them are found not guilty then we might not be able to keep them in Gitmo until we decide we don’t want to keep them there anymore.

And he said that like it’s a bad thing.

WhaleSpit November 17th, 2008 at 7:48 am
So, Kilo, is there anything that Obama (or anyone) could say or do to satisfy you? Or are you just ranting to hear yourself rant?

Are you fkn kidding me ?
I’ve pointed out that nobody is talking about ending rendition and secret detention facilities and you’re suggesting I’m being unreasonable by not accepting the assurances about these ending (which you apparently have) which nobody has given.

Just piss off. If you had anything other than a pretend interest in this I think we would have seen you do something other than avoiding acknowledging anything I’ve referred to here. Instead you’ve merely reinforced the point that you’re willing to pretend something is fixed that nobody has suggested will be. Instead you’ve advanced to suggesting I’ve got the problem for still raising this as an unresolved issue.

I bet you actually believe you look any different from the “it was just a few bad apples” crowd who decided that a dozen guards getting charged fixed everything already.

WhaleSpit November 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
But claiming (as Kilo seems to suggest) that Obama stated commitment to ending the Bush administration’s policy of torture is just a pack of lies is ranting, especially at this point, when the man hasn’t even taken office.

And yet despite multiple people pointing out multiple times that it is a lie, you can offer no suggestion as to how that isn’t the case.
This isn’t you disagreeing with me. It’s just you wanting to write off something you don’t want to hear.

Yeah, have a guess whether this is the first time that the public’s willing ignorance of policies like these occurring have been the reason they’ve been allowed to continue.

But let’s not attribute Bush’s failings to him, especially now. I prefer to live in the reality-based world, where conclusions come after the evidence, not before.

Is that what you’re doing is it ? Were I’m ranting by pointing out he’s proposed shutting only one of dozens of prisons and has expressed no interest in ceasing renditions. Flying the reality-based flag where politicians are given the benefit of the doubt on bi-partisan supported policies they’ve expressed no interest in changing and have no pressure to change. Yeah.

JayBrida
And that last part about what Obama was supposed to represent was for Kilo, who obviously feels there’s nothing about America worth being optimistic about or anything at all which makes it different. Which is fine, but makes it difficult to understand why he’d bother feeling so betrayed by Obama’s promise not to torture.

Well way to deliberately miss the point then.
It is not possible for me to feel betrayed by him not upholding commitments he hasn’t made. Just like it’s not possible for you to defend his commitment to this, which doesn’t exist. Which is why we see neither here.

montysano November 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Let me direct Kilo et al to what might be the greatest blog post of all time. Tbogg wrote it just for you.

You sure it’s just for me ? I mean, that would be hilarious if I were the one person on a left-wing blog who’d been screaming about how outrageous these immoral policies are and how they needed to be ended for the past 7 years. Is that your recollection ?

Meanwhile, for those who of you who just pretended to give a shit about ending policies which exist primarily to facilitate human rights abuses for no reason other than it was politically convenient at the time, I guess that’ll be a really funny post to stick it to those who weren’t pretending. Those who haven’t got the memo that it was all a joke and now the left has now taken the right’s mantle. Aha, gotcha, our guy’s in office and the time for those “moral” concerns and criticisms are over.

Yeah, good one. Let’s all laugh about it together.

BillCinSD November 17th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Greenwald has an article this morning concerning Brennan and Obama

More specifically, concerning a leading candidate for DNI under Obama who supported Bush’s interrogation/detention policies and defends the (prohibited) use of rendition by the US.

Again, just for the lazy, the only changes to these policies that anyone is suggesting is that GTMO will be closed leaving all the other prisons to do what it did, that military personnel won’t be doing the interrogating that the CIA was already doing and to change one set of military tribunals for another.

Either this is the comprehensive rollback you’ve all said gave a fk about for the past 7 years or it isn’t. It isn’t.

I guess we’ll continue this conversation when someone realises the NSA isn’t going to be turned into a child-care agency under Obama and the 100% of Americans who have 100% of their electronic communications intercepted isn’t going the change under the president that follows Bush, just like it didn’t under the president that preceded him.

To those who are familiar with Obama’s stand on secret prisons and torture and the torture bill – and really, you’d have to have just emerged from under a rock to be as out of touch as pastormaker here – it’s patently obvious what Obama is saying. He’s saying torture won’t be tolerated under his government and that he’s going to ensure America gets back to what it stood for prior to the Bush administration’s hijacking of the constitution.

Just to add for Kilo et al, but when Obama says “America doesn’t torture” he is not claiming that America is not torturing now, he is not saying that America has not been guilty of torturing under the Bush-Cheney regime. It is, in fact, clearly implicit in his remarks and his stance that he believes that torture HAS been going on and might indeed be going on even now. He is saying “The America (that I believe in) doesn’t torture” as a matter of basic principle and he will take steps top make sure that principle is followed. Really, it’s not even close to ambiguous.

We all seem to be fresh out of snark; must be post-election depression or something…

Naomi Klein’s article about torture from Dec/05.

http://www.naomiklein.org/arti…..ure-debate

As J. Peterman once said: “Well, that certainly is a lot of words”.

Makes me want pie.

Like I said, if you actually gave a fk instead of just pretending to for partisan political purposes, we’d see different responses here.
But congrats for putting so much effort into faking it for the past 8 years. Tricked a lot of people.

Well, Kilo, how about this: Impeach Obama! It’s the only answer!

But before you get started on that campaign, you might want to actually review Obama’s measured, reluctant, heavily qualified statement about the FISA bill that left himself a WIDE OPEN back door to undo it later either in the Senate or from the White House. Here’s a link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..55839/542.
His support of the compromise was a pure act of political expediency, designed to cut McCain’s national-security attacks off in mid-sentence — and it worked like a charm.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales is a bad rock band that trashed every room of every floor of the hotel they were staying in for eight years and Obama’s got to pick up all that broken crap piece by piece. It’s going to take a long, long time

Just to add for Kilo et al, but when Obama says “America doesn’t torture” he is not claiming that America is not torturing now, he is not saying that America has not been guilty of torturing under the Bush-Cheney regime. It is, in fact, clearly implicit in his remarks and his stance that he believes that torture HAS been going on and might indeed be going on even now. He is saying “The America (that I believe in) doesn’t torture” as a matter of basic principle and he will take steps top make sure that principle is followed. Really, it’s not even close to ambiguous.

Nor is it when Bush says the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. I presume you realise that he too wasn’t admitting he was endorsing it.
Are we starting this comment thread again from the start or something ?

If Obama isn’t going to undo, on his first day in office, all of the damage done by Bushco then I want my vote back!

secularhuman November 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Well, Kilo, how about this: Impeach Obama! It’s the only answer!

The only answer appears to be avoid acknowledging what I’ve at any cost and invent some straw man argument to address instead. It’s as interesting when you do it as it was when the others here did. Not at all.

But before you get started on that campaign, you might want to actually review Obama’s measured, reluctant, heavily qualified statement about the FISA bill that left himself a WIDE OPEN back door to undo it later either in the Senate or from the White House.

Apart from a way to change the subject, why would I want to do that ?
If I cared how Obama voted on the FISA bill I might have mentioned that. I don’t and I haven’t.

His support of the compromise was a pure act of political expediency, designed to cut McCain’s national-security attacks off in mid-sentence — and it worked like a charm.

So I guess it was much like the political expediency of passing the immunity provisions for the Bush administration officials who authorised torture so Democrats could win some seats back in 2006 then.
I’m not sure what the point of discussing this is. Is this news to you or are you just confused about the topic being discussed ?

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales is a bad rock band that trashed every room of every floor of the hotel they were staying in for eight years and Obama’s got to pick up all that broken crap piece by piece. It’s going to take a long, long time

Tell us about it. After all, the same torture training camp has been operating on US soil for 60 years. Wanna have a guess whether the absence of any pressure to reverse that program, or pretending that it doesn’t exist has any bearing on just how long it’s remained operational ?

Fkn hell, is explaining this one thing a dozen different ways enough or are we pushing on to 20 now. And this is the level of acknowledgement that we see when it’s the only topic raised. None.
Yeah, let’s all wonder how that turns out.

Everyone is soooo sorry that the world and everyone in it has has not lived up to your expectations but then we can’t all be purity freaks. Let us know when you need some help getting that third nail in.

Nobody likes an unfinished self-crucifixion or an unfulfilled contrarian.

If Obama isn’t going to undo, on his first day in office, all of the damage done by Bushco then I want my vote back!

What Obama doesn’t undo becomes his.
We’ve got 70 comments here. Is there 1 person who wants to lie to me and claim that private military contractors today aren’t hung around Bush’s neck, despite this program starting under Clinton ? So who do you think owns that next year ?

Same for rendition, detentions and NSA surveillence. Shit, did you never wonder why it was that when Bush authorised the NSA to spy on Americans they were immediately able to deliver that ? It’s almost as though they had all the shit in place and operating. Well there’s a reason it looked like that, and will look that way still come Feb.

Either figure out now that nobody mentioning putting these policies out of business means what it obviously does or you’re going to need to play dumb like this for the same duration that Bush fans did.
I keep hearing about a smooth transition in the news. Indeed it is.

TBogg November 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
In response to Kilo @ 70 (show text)
Everyone is soooo sorry that the world and everyone in it has has not lived up to your expectations but then we can’t all be purity freaks

Presumably this is a declaration of what you’d accept as an adequate response to basically everything you’ve posted here regarding Bush administration policies for the past few years.

Human rights abuses ? Well sooooo-rrrrr-y if it wasn’t to your liking.
What a zinger. And who knew that’s all you were seeking in each and every post about such issues of little consequence.
Forget to add a whole lot of /sarc tags did we ?

Let us know when you need some help getting that third nail in. Nobody likes an unfinished self-crucifixion or an unfulfilled contrarian.

Yeah, and how are liars and hypocrites viewed ?
One of us has run a blog during the Bush administration. Is this a declaration you’ve never expressed an opinion about these issues or are your archives not going to help this 11th hour change of heart on these issues now that the only thing that has changed is a democrat has been elected ?

You pathetic fkn shell of a man.

First off: fuck off.

Apparently everyone here has to agree how amazingly fucking right you are in order to receive your benediction. Well fuck that noise, you bitter self-righteous smug asshole.

Yes, you know everything. You’re a fucking seer, a paragon of blinding white purity. But we’re not worthy. Try No Quarter. You’ll like it there: assholes abound. Breathe deep and you’ll know that you’re home…

Oh yeah…fuck off, just in case I wasn’t clear.

is it really too much to see what the man actually does before griping about it? I know, the past 8 years it’s been easy to see the wreck coming as soon as the clowns got behind the wheel. I don’t know, but I think I will wait and see what he does, once he can do something, anything. Maybe the first 100 days will surprise all of us. Maybe he will declare a caliphate under sharia. Or maybe he will shutdown GTMO and the rendition program. I really can’t read all your comments, as there’s so much spittle on the other side of the screen, makes ‘em blurry.

hee hee

In response to Kilo @ 75 (show text)

First off: fuck off.

Suck my balls you fraud. And nice of you to call me mr concern troll on the topic of human rights abuses after what you’ve been posting here for the past few years.

Monday, March 07, 2005 – I know nothing. I see nothing.
If a detainee, being tortured to death after “extraordinary rendition” to a foreign country, screams, and Alberto Gonzales doesn’t hear him, did he really die?:

Was a multiple choice apparently.
(a) Depends on who’s in office at the time.
(b) Who gives a shit
(c) Not if we all pretend with him

Strange how nobody tweaked to your true position on this at the time. Absent some recent re-evaluation, based on an election result, it’s almost as though everyone took you to have the exact opposite position to “oh well sorry if our human rights abuses aren’t to your liking”.

Apparently everyone here has to agree how amazingly fucking right you are in order to receive your benediction. Well fuck that noise, you bitter self-righteous smug asshole.

Wow, if pointing out that people are deluding themselves for the purposes of partisan loyalty makes me a smug self-rightous arsehole, I might have join the blogosphere and write something at any point during the last 8 years.
What else you got a problem with, my love of posting dog photos ?

I’ve asked nobody to do anything other than stop inventing non-existant positions for Obama which he has deliberately avoided making and acknowledge what that avoidance of comment means for those policies. This is me bending people to my will is it ? Yeah, that’s all about me.

Saturday, November 03, 2007 – School for scoundrels
So it doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to foresee a future when Blackwater becomes the go-to company for a government that requires plausible deniability (nudge nudge…say no more) when it comes to outsourcing torture or, say, privatizing the School of Americas.

Blackwater, outsorced torture, SOA. Three things not going anywhere. What a prick I am for giving a fk about these the the day after the election like I did the day before. It’s me, not you.

Yes, you know everything. You’re a fucking seer, a paragon of blinding white purity. But we’re not worthy. Try No Quarter. You’ll like it there: assholes abound. Breathe deep and you’ll know that you’re home…

I’d love to but, coincidently, Larry banned me years ago for calling him out on his bullshit too. It’s kind of a pattern with me. Come to think of it, that was back when he was a little miss plamegate’s favourite here at FDL.

Oh yeah…fuck off, just in case I wasn’t clear.

Nah. You want to take over from the right-wingers in the role of unquestioning defense of WH platitudes for indefensible policies you get what comes with it. You’ll suck it up for the duration.

Dear Kilo,

You are a dick, son. You’re not a dick because of your positions. You are a dick because you’re calling people names and yelling at them. And because you’re doing this, people are going to ignore everything you wrote after the first few posts. I know I have.

Now, you can scream back that we’re a bunch of snivilling pussies because you screaming and yelling names caused us to quit reading your substance, but it’s just going to confirm that you’re a dick, and reinforce that not reading your substance is the right thing to do.

Dick.

Kilo

Welcome to the Freeper wing of Firedoglake.

I’ve asked nobody to do anything other than stop inventing non-existant positions for Obama which he has deliberately avoided making and acknowledge what that avoidance of comment means for those policies.

So you want people to read the Obama tea leaves, decode his words, and say with absolute certainty what he will do or won’t do. Anything less than that is just Obama fluffing in your eyes. And the fact that he has deliberately avoided your pet subject (because, really, this is the most important challenge facing the US today) is a personal affront to you because the most important thing in Obama’s world is “What can I say to make kilo happy? To soothe his embittered cynical soul.”

Blackwater, outsorced torture, SOA. Three things not going anywhere. What a prick I am for giving a fk about these the the day after the election like I did the day before. It’s me, not you.

Forgive us all for not caring as much as you do, for having to carry our burden. For seeing into the future and tsk-tsking our TBA transgressions and our blind obedience. For our countenancing, well, all of that bad stuff that Obama is going to do, or not do, or not talk about, someday, really really soon. Barack Obama has done nothing but lie and deceive and disappoint us since he assumed office and for that we are deeply sincerely profoundly ashamed.

Can you ever forgive us? Can we live with our pre-destined unavoidable shame?

From your comments the only thing that we can know for sure, because it’s in the here and now, is that you’re a prick.

And we don’t even have to wait until after Inauguration Day to understand that.

So you want people to read the Obama tea leaves, decode his words, and say with absolute certainty what he will do or won’t do.

No. I just said that’s what I’m criticising.
I haven’t said he will do anything. I’ve merely pointed out that what he’s proposed falls well short of what everyone’s been calling for.

I did the same thing when Pelosi passed the “no more new military bases in Iraq act”, which like closing GTMO, was also window dressing given that the military was already saying they had too many bases to maintain.

I did the same thing with McCain’s anti-torture bill which prevented people other than the CIA interrogators and their contractors from doing what the CIA was. It amounted to the outsourcing torture bill. This too was window dressing.

The only tea leaf reading going on in all of these scenarios is where theres a policy of concern, a proposal to change some symbolic part of it which was never the problem and won’t fix it and then a whole bunch of people that will buy that as a solution and STFU as though anything changed.

I’ve quoted you here citing the SOA. You know as well as I do why that torture school has survived every democrat and republican presidency, house and senate since the 40s and it wasn’t for lack of giving politicians the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing.

You’re here posting a quote about him committing to shutting GTMO. Is there even one brain cell that questions whether committing to shutting the other prisons most detainees are in and that most GMTO residents spent most of their time at would have played badly as a policy ? Maybe that he didn’t mention these things because of time restraints in 2 years of delivering 7 million speeches on the change he was bringing ?

Anything less than that is just Obama fluffing in your eyes.

It is precisely what I said it is. A statement from a politician in line with all previous statements from politicians. There’s not even Republican house bully you can find who’ll take a pause from talking about deporting mexicans to tell you anything other than the US doesn’t torture. This statement has precisely no value.

Meanwhile you know that renditions for the purposes of torturing people to death have enjoyed bipartisan support under the last 2 presidencies.
You can’t seriously be questioning why a statement ruling out the latter is more desirable than one parroting the former. This being a statement nobody is pressing for.

Yet somehow I’m the arsehole for assuming no change in policy to the non-commitment to change policy. Right.

And the fact that he has deliberately avoided your pet subject (because, really, this is the most important challenge facing the US today)…

It wasn’t the most important challenge facing the US at any point during the past 8 years either. Either that means a shitload of space and time has been wasted talking about addressing it or it hasn’t. Either ending these policies was something worth pressing for or they weren’t. You can tell us which wins out, you’ve go the blog and you’ve made statements suggesting both positions.
I assume you’re not shutting down come February.

…is a personal affront to you because the most important thing in Obama’s world is “What can I say to make kilo happy?To soothe his embittered cynical soul.”

Again, I’ve not written about this repeatedly on my blog and suggested I was outraged by it for years. Either all those thousands of posts from the left were for my benefit or they weren’t. Either the election nullified all these concerns or they didn’t.

All I’m saying is that a complete absence of statements that particular policies will change, policies which have already operated under both republican and democrat presidencies, should be a basis for assuming they won’t change rather than that they will.

If that’s me overstepping the line I’m fine with that. We will find out shortly whether I’m wrong or not. Meanwhile, let’s continue calling me an arsehole for suggesting that pressuring someone to end these human rights abusing policies might be an idea rather that just leaving it alone.

Forgive us all for not caring as much as you do, for having to carry our burden.

I was quoting you.

For seeing into the future and tsk-tsking our TBA transgressions and our blind obedience. For our countenancing, well, all of that bad stuff that Obama is going to do, or not do, or not talk about, someday, really really soon.

Do you believe this looks smart ? Oh how can I make predictions about him not doing something he hasn’t proposed doing. Things that have occurred under both Bush and Clinton will totally not happen under Obama because he’s avoided suggesting he will do anything different.

It’s not like I’m channelling Nostradamus here any more than I am saying he’ll be keeping the Dept of Agriculture until he says anything different.

Still, we’ll find out together won’t we.

Barack Obama has done nothing but lie and deceive and disappoint us since he assumed office and for that we are deeply sincerely profoundly ashamed.

That would be a great comment if he actually needed to lie. Instead we see that all he has to do is say “change” and everyone is willing to fill in the gaps with assumptions for him.

Can you ever forgive us? Can we live with our pre-destined unavoidable shame? From your comments the only thing that we can know for sure, because it’s in the here and now, is that you’re a prick.
And we don’t even have to wait until after Inauguration Day to understand that.

Then I’ll be the prick and you be guy who just pretended to give a fuck about policies which serve no purpose other than to facilitate human rights abuses. The word that is either better or worse than prick.

I hope we appreciate that the gap of the unknown you’re falling back on here is 3 months and it’ll then be followed by 8 years of knowing. You can ask some right-wingers just how long that feels.

Somehow I doubt that anyone, including a Paul Wellstone brought back to life, would be pure enough for you.

This is why the Cons kick our butts most of the time: Because too many lefties look for reasons not to get involved. The process started back in the 1970s; they looked for reasons to stay out of electoral politics and hide in various apolitical affinity groups, even as the right increased its involvement in politics.

So you want people to read the Obama tea leaves, decode his words, and say with absolute certainty what he will do or won’t do. Anything less than that is just Obama fluffing in your eyes. And the fact that he has deliberately avoided your pet subject (because, really, this is the most important challenge facing the US today) is a personal affront to you because the most important thing in Obama’s world is “What can I say to make kilo happy? To soothe his embittered cynical soul.”

That’s about it. I’ve noticed with the hardcore screechers that the world revolves around them, or at least they act as if it does.

I think the universal in the Omelas story is found by substituting my name… your name… everyone’s name in your phrase “not even Obama”. Everyone is Omelas had the ability to pick up that child and carry him out into the sunshine. Self-righteous, “brain-deficient phychos” and ordinary, frightened and insecure, people torture other living animals and people. The process of asserting power is a “high” and self-gratifing. Watching or knowing about torture drains humanity from everyone, even entire cultures. The personal act of torture is not a forgettable fact but it can be cannonized. Our government has done this over and over: the institution of African American slavery is not understood as institutionalized torture; tar and feathering was seen as pesky hometown rioting; lynching as vigilantee “law”, scalp bounties on American Indians…
What bothers me the most is the government protection of the individuals involved- from Bush (who, by the way branded fraternity newbies at Yale) to CIA interrogators to bored rank and file servicemen and women who daily torture POWs to citizen-guards in our domestic prisons. Who are they? They are among us. How can I avoid them? How can we rehabilitate them so they won’t be a danger to you and I? How can we show others what torturing acts do the torturer if we don’t know who they are? And how can we help the tortured…if we don’t admit we did it?
National acknowledgement is the first step. It is not semantics. President Obama will have to state the facts. “We are a torturing nation. Individuals torture but governments condone, ignore and proscribe.
I keep bringing up my father, his years as a young WWII POW continued to be formative in his life as father, teacher and citizen. He found a way as an individual to learn from both sides of the barbed wire. America can learn from these nightmare years but not if the process of moving on ignores the fact that it was not a dream. If Obama does not make public acknowledgement of this latest American institutionalization of torture it will fester like racism in our culture and the world.

I hope we appreciate that the gap of the unknown you’re falling back on here is 3 months and it’ll then be followed by 8 years of knowing. You can ask some right-wingers just how long that feels.

So (I really wasn’t clear on this point) you acknowledge that you have no idea, but you’ve decided to devote day 2 to going all Madame DeFarge on anyone who doesn’t accept your evaluation that we’re rocketing to the worst case scenario?

The man’s been the president-elect for a little over a week. The Bush administration is frantically putting new midnight regulations in place, moving the evillest of his political appointees into secret service jobs, and filling every post in sight. It’s just possible that the reason Obama hasn’t described his specific plans in a way that would satisfy you is that he doesn’t want Bush to know what to block.

Or maybe he’s just busy. I’ve heard that.

So I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt that we’re not doomed to a dystopian hell until he’s been in office a few days. Because refusing to acknowledge that there’s a possibility of things getting better is it’s own form of determinism. And because there are better ways to masturbate.

aack, civil service jobs.

This old canard makes no sense. Here’s Kilo arguing passionately for days about actively holding politicians’ feet to the fire; and you are accusing him of turning people off of politics.

I’ll tell you what turns me off: people who think that politics matter but principles don’t. Why should I care who gets into office if it won’t in any way advance the causes I feel are important for this country? I assure you I didn’t participate in this election because I wanted more bipartisanship in Washington. I didn’t do it because I wanted Lieberman to keep his important chairmanship.

I anticipate much sputtering, since I just implied that you lack principles. Before you do that, I urge you to consider what it means that instead of admiring people who stick to their principles, you are trying to make them feel guilty.

It’s fine to stick to the logic of The Lesser of Two Evils, especially as part of the More AND BETTER Dems strategy. But please don’t lose sight of the fact that you have still chosen an evil. Don’t lose sight of how far we have to go put this country back on track. Don’t think for an instant that the fact that you voted for someone means that they want what you want.

This was beautiful tb. Great piece.

Why should I care who gets into office if it won’t in any way advance the causes I feel are important for this country?

I guess I have to ask what causes you think are important, cuz I think he has addressed quite a few and offered a different direction than the incumbent or his would-be successor.

If you really want to get reductionist, by having a State, a Government at all, or an Economy that means some have more than others, we have created an evil. Do we really want to sit on our thumbs and moan about how evil it all is? Or should we “try. fail. fail again, fail better” or however the Beckett line reads?

Kilo, it’s obvious from all of what you’ve written that a) you’re unfamiliar with TBogg – as in completely and utterly ignorant – and probably haven’t read a fucking post he’s ever written here or in his previous blog and b) a flaming concern troll whose purpose appears to be getting as much attention as possible.

This is for Kilo and Barryr, from a book that they might like.

Julia November 18th, 2008 at 6:34 am

“the unknown you’re falling back on here is 3 months and it’ll then be followed by 8 years of knowing.”

So … you acknowledge that you have no idea, but you’ve decided to devote day 2 to going all Madame DeFarge on anyone who doesn’t accept your evaluation that we’re rocketing to the worst case scenario?

What evaluation of mine would that be Julia ? Can you not quote it for us ?
Just do that at least if you are unwilling or unable in any way shape or form bring yourself to suggest you disagree with it. Whatever it is.

BTW, here’s what’s going in that 3 month period that just CANNOT be interpreted. CANNOT have anything read into it. CANNOT be used to make assessments of the likelyhood of certain outcomes, lest that same bitching goes the other way…

MELVIN GOODMAN: John Brennan was deputy executive secretary to George Tenet during the worst violations during the CIA period in the run-up to the Iraq war, so he sat there at Tenet’s knee when they passed judgment on torture and abuse, on extraordinary renditions, on black sites, on secret prisons. He was part of all of that decision making.

JOHN BRENNAN: I think it’s an absolutely vital tool. I have been intimately familiar now for the past decade with the cases of rendition that the US government has been involved in, and I can say, without a doubt, that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives.

You can read these statements about and from Obama’s transition team adviser on intel and DNI candidate. But you are not allowed to interpret them in the same way you have interpreted any other piece of news about Bush’s torture team in the past few years as though you didn’t hand in your basic brain functions at the election booth.

Shit, how can have any idea what appointing Hillary to SoS means. Sure, she had a history before that happened, but Obama’s involved, so who knows who she is anymore. When they told you it was a historical election result they apparently meant that everything has changed, the ability for basic logic, independent thought and intellectual honesty included.

Phoenix Woman November 18th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
This is for Kilo and Barryr, from a book that they might like.

WTF is your problem with Barryr, other that you said something completely retarded and he had enough intellectual integrity to point that out ?

This wouldn’t look so pathetic if you were first able to post any response to him at all, but apparently you’re not capable of doing so.

I’ve said that I’m cautiously optimistic about the likelihood that the Obama Administration will end Bush’s policy of “enhanced interrogations,” although less so since learning about Obama adviser John Brennan’s past and his potential role in the Obama Administration.
…
Bush was just as “clear” in his public statements about torture declaring famously “we do not torture…we will aggressively pursue [terrorists], but we will do so under the law.” The point is that public statements are important for drawing lines but are meaningless unless the same hard lines are drawn in policy and practice.

To give Obama credit for having ended a policy of torture before he takes office is just as silly as claiming unequivocally that he has no intention of doing so. Giving Obama credit for doing the right thing before he does it eliminates the ability of torture opponents to pressure Obama to, in fact, do the right thing.

–A. Serwer, TAPPED

Arsehole.

NYT: “President-elect Barack Obama will face a series of early decisions on domestic spying that will test his administration’s views on presidential power and civil liberties.

The Justice Department will be asked to respond to motions in legal challenges to the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program, and must decide whether to continue the tactics used by the Bush administration — which has used broad claims of national security and “state secrets” to try to derail the challenges — or instead agree to disclose publicly more information about how the program was run.”
– Laura Rozen via War and Piece

That aforementioned justice dept would be the same one Scott Horton writes about here in his article “Will President Obama Prosecute War Crimes”, which deals with its complicity….

Justice Department memoranda were concocted, almost certainly in bad faith and after the fact, to authorize and legitimate what happened. In several cases already documented, Justice Department officials were actually in the decision-making process itself. In criminal law terms, they made themselves part of a joint criminal enterprise.

…along with the complicity of those same members of Obama’s transition team….

But there are a number of names in play right now who have troubling connections to the “dark side” of the intelligence community’s war on terror and who have pressing reasons to lobby against any investigation of any sort. Why? Because their own judgment-calls might come under unpleasant scrutiny. Just some for-instances:

John Brennan … Jamie Miscik … another figure who would clearly rather avoid a probe of the torture issue. And finally Jamie Gorelick … who, according to intelligence community sources, took a whopping retainer from the CIA to counsel and protect the psychologists who crafted the guts of the Bush torture program. Gorelick, a Hillary Clinton partisan, is also a name in play for a senior intelligence post.

Same 3 months minus 1 day now.

Thank you for the clarification, but I was already aware of the level of dialog here.