GOP to waterboard Cheney

[bradleym]

The current administration are scared to death that there could be another attack on the 'homeland', on the scale of 911 or even smaller, it doesn't matter.

 

Why is this a problem? Because we live in a country populated by mostly stupid people (like californians, who just cut their own throats, again) who will in the main jump to the conclusion that 'Obama didn't protect us', and the likes of Cheney, Rove and Boehner will be only too happy to fan those flames. As soon as that happens, everything else the administration want to do is history (ya know, like implement socialism and take everyone's guns ).

 

So they must step very carefully as they try to disentangle the policies of the past in a very complex world. Some of their moves will appear morally ambiguous, at least in the short term.

 

Should they be watched carefully and persistently? Yes. Should their feet be held to the fire (metaphorically speaking, of course)? Certainly. When they stray onto morally / ethically indefensible ground or betray their own principles, should they be called on that? Absolutely.

 

Wouldn't it be even better to reframe the debate a bit away from talk of 'terrorists' and 'war on terror' etc? pretty hard to do at this point, but a far better response to 911 would have been to recognize we live in an open society (that entails risk) that is ruled by law (i know, quaint) which employs its police to go after criminals (apologies to Boehner and his recent chest-thumping).

 

Happy Memorial Day.

[Bug]

Here comes the response from KKKK & FW.

Domocrats bad stupid people who don't supply links.

Republicans good (no links).

 

[STP]

When you speak of “stupid” Americans are you referring to those useful idiots who serve as apologists for their particular flavor of politics, those same stooges who are more concerned about window dressing rather than the price of the items advertised to be purchased?

 

While Obama campaigned on the mantra of change, necessity has shown that many of the changes he stated will not be implemented with the exception of some changes that were publicly proclaimed as evidence of his noble intentions. Of course, political reality dictates that the tools put into place by the Bush administration largely remain, as long as the threat of insurgency exists.

 

So, we have Obama speaking a kind of Aesopian language, not in the sense of a dissident voice but rather of one utilizing ‘oblique speak” or double talk, where he telegraphs his intention of preserving and in some cases expanding the unitary executive powers. With “prolonged detention” Obama seeks to erect a legal framework to legitimize this extraordinary authority. Why be concerned? Well, it highlights the difference between a “liberal” democracy and the potential emergence of a “totalitarian” democracy.

[Bug]

Don't get me wrong. I am not liking the pae of change but at the same time recognize that changing too fast is often not a healthy or sustainable thing. And, as I like to say, anyone who wants the job should be automatically disqualified.

Never the less, I still hold out hope that some meaningful change will come about as a result of Obama's administration.

I hold out hope that the groundswell of support from previously disenfranhised voters will be sustainable. If this is the case we could have an "anti-Reagan" revolution. Reagan enjoyed a strong groundswell as well and marshalled it into a series of executive acts that initiated this trend of modern presidents to write their own laws "ad hoc" so the story goes. In saying this I do not intend that Reagan was wrong through and through but that what he started has to be revisited and revised. The process is organic to some degree in that our system of government depends on the support of the currently most potent political base. It may also be the case that our constitution needs some more ammending. If this is the case, I would prefer to see a less potent corporate lobby in DC. As they are currently by far the most potent force in national politics any new ammendments would not bode well for you and me. Witness our latest meltdown. A trillion $ to big business from both sides of the aisle. So far, a few hundred million to the likes of you and me. Obama cannot fight that lobby for long without support from somewhere else. Bicker if you must but I'm goin with the man who talks the talk. Any president needs more than a hundred days to prove what he is made of.

[bradleym]

When you speak of “stupid” Americans are you referring to those useful idiots who serve as apologists for their particular flavor of politics, those same stooges who are more concerned about window dressing rather than the price of the items advertised to be purchased?

 

While Obama campaigned on the mantra of change, necessity has shown that many of the changes he stated will not be implemented with the exception of some changes that were publicly proclaimed as evidence of his noble intentions. Of course, political reality dictates that the tools put into place by the Bush administration largely remain, as long as the threat of insurgency exists.

 

So, we have Obama speaking a kind of Aesopian language, not in the sense of a dissident voice but rather of one utilizing ‘oblique speak” or double talk, where he telescopes his intention of preserving and in some cases expanding the unitary executive powers. With “prolonged detention” Obama seeks to erect a legal framework to legitimize this extraordinary authority. Why be concerned? Well, it highlights the difference between a “liberal” democracy and the potential emergence of a “totalitarian” democracy.

 

no, i'm speaking of those useful idiots who cannot appreciate or tolerate complexity, for whom there can be only one right answer for nearly any policy issue, and who are so easily wound up by litmus tests and taken in by dark conspiracy theories about what 'the other guy' is _really_ up to.

 

Neither 'necessity' nor anything else have 'shown that many of the changes he stated will not be implemented'. time will tell, but the myriad rule changes, executive orders and new legislative initiatives, and now a candidate for the supreme court demonstrate the sincere desire to effect significant change.

 

No politician will ever avoid what you refer to as oblique speak or double talk. Such things are actually useful components of the leadership toolkit. Didn't you ever read Machiavelli or Castiglioni? How do you think things in a polity actually get done?

[bradleym]

Any president needs more than a hundred days to prove what he is made of.

 

amen.

[billcoe]

.... I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how someone can oppose using a tactic like waterboarding on ethical grounds, without having considerably stronger objections to blowing the same person - along with his children, family, pet chickens, etc to pieces with an airstrike in order to achieve the same end...preventing the said person from orchestrating, assisting in, conducting, etc terrorist attacks in which they deliberately kill as many civilians as possible.

 

I think that it makes good practical sense to blow them to pieces with a missile or bomb instead of apprehending them, since killing them in this fashion is likely to cost us far less politically than capturing them, detaining them, and interrogating them - even if this means killing multiple other people who just happen to be in the same madrassa. I'm just not about to pretend that it's more moral, or that making pledges not to torture AQ operatives that we happen to capture alive is anything but a practical and political concession so long as we'd gladly execute them with explosives when given the chance.......

 

Opps. Caught with an innovative friends and family plan similar to what you outlined above. Can we still blame Bush?

 

Titled "U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners"

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/

 

“Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media...

The last line.

Whatever else is true, it seems highly likely that Barack Obama is the first Nobel Peace laureate who, after receiving his award, presided over the deliberate targeting of rescuers and funeral mourners of his victims.

 

Romney, same same with no Nobel prize is all, don't hold yer breath for hope or change after the next election bros, we got us a system going on here. A system.

 

Paul is the only candidate suggesting we are way out of line here. What a nutjob. Clearly no one else (except Jayb it seems) gives a shit.

 

 

 

[j_b]

If you paid attention to news outfits other than the corporate and right wing media, you'd know there are other candidates like Jill Stein (Green party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice party) who are resolutely anti-war, but who also happen to not advocate policies that favor the 1% like Ron Paul does.

 

It's particularly rich to read from you that warmongers and islamophobes like JayB give a shit about ethical foreign policies. I guess coming from someone who discovered his conscience late during Bush's 2nd term, it shouldn't be too surprising.

[billcoe]

If you paid attention to news outfits other than the corporate and right wing media, you'd know there are other candidates like Jill Stein (Green party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice party) who are resolutely anti-war, but who also happen to not advocate policies that favor the 1% like Ron Paul does.

 

It's particularly rich to read from you that warmongers and islamophobes like JayB give a shit about ethical foreign policies. I guess coming from someone who discovered his conscience late during Bush's 2nd term, it shouldn't be too surprising.

 

piss off wanker

[Fairweather]

 

It's particularly rich to read from you that warmongers and islamophobes like JayB give a shit about ethical foreign policies. I guess coming from someone who discovered his conscience late during Bush's 2nd term, it shouldn't be too surprising.

 

I thought we had all entered the post name-calling era.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If you paid attention to news outfits other than the corporate and right wing media, you'd know there are other candidates like Jill Stein (Green party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice party) who are resolutely anti-war, but who also happen to not advocate policies that favor the 1% like Ron Paul does.

 

It's particularly rich to read from you that warmongers and islamophobes like JayB give a shit about ethical foreign policies. I guess coming from someone who discovered his conscience late during Bush's 2nd term, it shouldn't be too surprising.

 

Remember j_b: "don't be a dick"

 

 

[j_b]

If you paid attention to news outfits other than the corporate and right wing media, you'd know there are other candidates like Jill Stein (Green party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice party) who are resolutely anti-war, but who also happen to not advocate policies that favor the 1% like Ron Paul does.

 

It's particularly rich to read from you that warmongers and islamophobes like JayB give a shit about ethical foreign policies. I guess coming from someone who discovered his conscience late during Bush's 2nd term, it shouldn't be too surprising.

 

piss off wanker

 

You'd have to be anti-war for at least a couple electoral cycles before I gave somebody who supported Bush policies the benefit of the doubt.

[j_b]

If you paid attention to news outfits other than the corporate and right wing media, you'd know there are other candidates like Jill Stein (Green party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice party) who are resolutely anti-war, but who also happen to not advocate policies that favor the 1% like Ron Paul does.

 

It's particularly rich to read from you that warmongers and islamophobes like JayB give a shit about ethical foreign policies. I guess coming from someone who discovered his conscience late during Bush's 2nd term, it shouldn't be too surprising.

 

Remember j_b: "don't be a dick"

 

Pretty much everything I ever said about JayB and co has been based on the position they defended here. If you don't want your rhetoric to be taken at face value, don't post it.

[Fairweather]

If you paid attention to news outfits other than the corporate and right wing media, you'd know there are other candidates like Jill Stein (Green party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice party) who are resolutely anti-war, but who also happen to not advocate policies that favor the 1% like Ron Paul does.

 

It's particularly rich to read from you that warmongers and islamophobes like JayB give a shit about ethical foreign policies. I guess coming from someone who discovered his conscience late during Bush's 2nd term, it shouldn't be too surprising.

 

Remember j_b: "don't be a dick"

 

Pretty much everything I ever said about JayB and co has been based on the position they defended here. If you don't want your rhetoric to be taken at face value, don't post it.

 

:[]

[j_b]

how eloquent ...