I think it was the "we tortured some folks" moment

[My Good Babushka]

when Obama also declined to prosecute anyone associated with torture, that I felt like both parties had become one giant, tangled rat-king of war criminals.

Since then we've just been rolling on like a stupid, blind, insensate wheel of perpetual war, with both parties giving their tacit approval to "anything goes", no standards engagement. That our aggression has accomplished nothing except make more splinter groups, more terrorist cells, and make everyone in the world less safe, seems hardly to matter to anyone.

Besides producing more dead bodies than the Khmer Rouge, I don't see what our global war on terror has accomplished, and I don't know what the justifications are for continuing to support any "tough on terror" candidate.

[cantbeserious]

1. Agreed Completely

eom

[Hortensis]

52. Nonsense. THE REPUBLICANS "tortured some people,"

and millions of conservatives defend it at every discussion, right out in the open as if it weren't a crime -- which it is not to them. President Obama was admitting this openly and honestly but putting the blame on all of us, and we all so deserve at least some of it.

But some much more than others.

Don't bother telling me that all the hostile, relentlessly negative Anti-Democrats here on DU always voted at all, much less knowledgeably, in every election for the past 30 years that they were eligible because I won't believe it.

And I am equally sure that some of those who are here so hypocritically blaming the Democratic Party for what the Republicans did in fact voted for the torurers but are too dishonest even with themselves to face up to their responsibility.

[yardwork]

56. Great rant! Thank you. Posts like this are why I still bother participating here.

[Fast Walker 52]

68. Point taken, and for every thing the Dems do that is bad, the Repubs are far far worse

But still, Obama has set a lot of bad precedents in his tenure, particularly not going after clear war criminals and prosecuting a failed war on terror.

[Hortensis]

81. Everything a president does has an opportunity

cost -- i.e., the cost of what he could have used his power to accomplish instead. Plus, everything a president does has a bundle of consequences, not all of them good. And since knowledge IS power, they can't explain all or often even any of their true reasons to us. The best we can do is vote to put good people in office -- and then let them know we're always watching.

IMO, only a truly profound arrogance combined with profound ignorance could produce people who feel entitled to knee-jerk condemn the actions of any president just because they want to complain. Arrogance and a profound failure of principle.

* Democrats, including virtually all liberals, are the largest voting block by far that opposes torture.

* A majority of Republican and independent conservatives are the block that favors torture.

All of those who try to weaken Democrats politically by denying they are the nation's bulwark against torture and who join Republicans in condemning them and spreading lies about them are supporting and enabling torturers and torture. That is what I mean by failure of principle.

[Fast Walker 52]

88. I agree 100% with you on torture & I imagine on many issues. The GOP is simply evil in most matters

I can't stand people saying both sides are the same.

BUT, and you knew there had to be a but, Dems still do far too much crap for me to be satisfied. Obviously Dems are much better and probably the GOP influences Dems in a bad way. But evil policies such as endless war are still too bipartisan for my taste.

[Hortensis]

97. Fast Walker, I agree with YOU 100%, and yes,

of course I knew there would be a significant "but."

If the Democrats were being showered with constant extravagant approval and mindless loyalty, the way Bernie is by so many, I'd instead be forced into pointing out our many faults and inadequacies and trying to explain what I feel should not be tolerated and why. Same for Hillary. But of course that's hardly the case.

[Fast Walker 52]

103. cool, fair enough!

[JDPriestly]

90. So where are the indictments on torture charges that the Democrats

brought against the Republicans like Cheney and Bush who OK'd the torture orders? Where are they?

If Democrats oppose torture, why didn't they enforce the laws against them? Where were the impeachment papers?

What happened here?

[Hortensis]

117. What happened here was opportunity cost.

Think about it. Democrats are progressives. We build, improve, advance wellbeing through action. Diverting what political capital we had in those days (not nearly enough) from the task of building to attempting to prosecute crimes on the other side would have actually promoted the conservative end games -- to block and destroy progressive action and to conquer the electorate through division.

Note that last. Many/most Americans shamefully supported -- and still support -- what they did, or didn't know what to think, or just knew they wanted a strong defense and that was Bush (not!). The cost to the Democratic Party of removing them from office would have been extremely high.

If we had bit the bullet and sent Nixon and Reagan to prison, as of course we should have, we would not have had W and Cheney, but although no one should be above the law -- and especially high public officians, it's impossible to count what the cost would have been back then. Of course, decades later we ended up bitterly divided anyway...

[Martin Eden]

73. Democrats are Complicit

To the extent our elected Democrats did not condemn torture and other war crimes when they became aware of it and insist it be stopped, they are complicit (some did, some didn't).

When crimes have been committed and those responsible to uphold the law do not indict and prosecute the criminals, they have tacitly condoned it (regardless of rhetoric to the contrary).

Those who gave the orders to commit crimes (administration of GW Bush) are by far the most guilty. Subordinates who followed those orders are guilty, but less so. Those who meet the criteria in the two paragraphs above are complicit.

When there are no consequences for the most guilty we have abandoned justice, and should expect the crimes to be repeated.

[RiverNoord]

92. Bullshit.

Employees of the government of the United States of America tortured people. Lots of people. And regardless of how we voted (I've damn well voted for Democrats for 27 years and never once for a Republican. Period. 'Anti-Democrats?' - what kind of absurd fantasy is that?), we all share the blame for what our country does. We share it because it is, ostensibly, a representative democracy, and if we are powerless to prevent crimes committed by those who who act on its behalf, then we must act to obtain the power necessary to call them to account for their acts, and prevent such things from happening in the future.

This has nothing to do with political parties, other than the determination of whether they can serve such objectives or not. If we elect a Democrat to the office of the Presidency, and that Democrat decides not to pursue this objective, then either we change our behavior to ensure that such decisions carry a heavy political cost, or we are parties to the decision.

There is nothing our country does that we, as American citizens, are not ultimately accountable for. You let yourself off by claiming that it was not you but those other people who did these things. That gives you an escape route - if you vote against those other people, you obviously can not be responsible for what they did. But it's a fantasy, one that enables you to speak with righteous indignation while you don't do a damn thing.

Don't forget that it was a Democratic president who genuinely started the Vietnam war, a Democratic president who ordered the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a Democratic president that now is in charge of the most sophisticated assassination infrastructure on the planet. We're not paragons of virtue compared to savage, evil conservative torture-monsters. We are all Americans and this is our country. If we cannot take responsibility for its crimes, how can we, without living in utter denial, claim responsibility for its achievements?

[mazzarro]

95. Absolutely and 100% in complete agreement with this opinion - n/t

[Hotler]

111. I agree and one of the problems is....

not enough people will to taking to the street by the tens of thousands for as long as it takes to get a message across that we're not going to take it any more. A few hundred people here and there protesting will not cut it and for damn sure voting isn't getting the job done. It is too easy to sit behind a keyboard an bitch.

[RiverNoord]

119. And I agree with you entirely.

Without taking to the streets, nothing happens.

If it's serious enough for people to BS about on Internet forums but not serious enough for us to aggressively employ our right to assemble to demand change, then nothing will change.

One of the functions of these types of message boards is to enable people to blow off steam. If you blow off your steam with righteous rants, you're less inclined to demand anything more of yourself...

[Democat]

115. An American commited murder, you are a murderer

What a rant.

[RiverNoord]

120. If that's how you interpreted the essence of what I wrote,

you didn't get it.

[Surya Gayatri]

108. ^^^This!^^^

[progressoid]

113. Democrats hands are not clean in this.

?w=575

[L. Coyote]

11. Retroactive immunity was a turning point in American history.

When the Congress gives a blanket pardon for crimes, the corrupt are obviously the majority.

[merrifield]

13. Yes

That's when I realized it, too. I didn't know much about the Deep State then, but now see his actions as in concert with the DS's militaristic, big-brother designs.

[2cannan]

27. Good read about this

How the Powers That Be Maintain the "Deep State": An Interview With Mike Lofgren
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34912-illicit-surveillance-and-the-deep-state-an-interview-with-mike-lofgren

snip

Obama appeared to have a similar fundraising model, but it was clear he was bought off in summer 2008 when he voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act [a bill to indemnify the telecommunications companies over participation in illegal surveillance] that he previously had said he would filibuster. By then he had already taken on John Brennan as a foreign policy adviser.

[thereismore]

114. I loved Obama, he is still in my avatar with Bernie.

But I'm thinking Bernie should not associate with him much.

[Fast Walker 52]

71. endless drone strikes, the Afghanistan and Libya debacles, the forced deportation of immigrants

not going after the Bush administration war criminals, not prosecuting Wall St, trying to make nice with the GOP, prosecuting whistleblowers... the list goes on.

A lot of really bad shit will keep me from ever admiring Obama.

[My Good Babushka]

3. I guess I just need to touch base

with people who still care about this, because both parties are acting like perpetual war is just a foregone conclusion.

[JEB]

4. Ab-so-fucking-lutely correct. nt

[rhett o rick]

5. He, by his actions and inactions re. torture, condoned it and normalized it.

While I would love to have seen those guilty of war crimes punished, I would settle at this point for a mere condemnation. Tell the American people and the world that what we did was wrong and we are sorry to have let it happen.

I don't think the decision on what to do re torture was Obama's to make. The decision came from a higher paygrade.

[Buzz Clik]

30. So, when he said we don't condone torture, he was actually saying, "We condone torture."

And he normalized it?

Dude, you've lost your way. You are so fixed with butting your head against the wall, you think everyone is the enemy. Take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about this for a while -- like a few years.

[Fumesucker]

102. When Obama failed to prosecute what were clearly crimes he implicitly condoned them

[MuseRider]

6. So few words

well said that answer all the questions and provides the one big question of the day. Why?

Well done.

[Stonepounder]

7. Very simple answer to your question of 'Why?'

$$$$

Take a look at how much money gets poured down the rat-hole of the 'defense industry', or in the words from a bygone era the 'military-industrial complex'. Look at how much money gets spent on planes that don't fly and ships the Navy doesn't want. Look at how much it costs for our privatized military. The U.S. doesn't produce a damn thing any more, so we have to rely on military contractors to keep the money pumping.

Anyone old enough to remember the ads for the I.L.G.W.? "Look for the union label when you are buying a shirt..." The U.S. used to manufacture its own clothes. Not now. Even Levi has outsourced its production. The U.S. used to manufacture iron and steel. Not anymore. TV sets, appliances, autos? Nope.

So the only way the oligarchy can get rich(er) is war, war, war. And to hell with the cannon fodder - that's just collateral damage.

[ReRe]

16. I don't know who you are, Stonepounder...

... but welcome to DU. You are going to find some like-minds here. I couldn't agree with you more. Hey, but like GHWB said, this is the "New World Oder", the MIC and globalization. We're the big puppet handlers up here over the world. We control everything, and if they don't go along with the way we deem it to be, we bring in the MIC. A perpetual world-wide money machine.
And believe me, they don't give a shit about us.

[MuseRider]

47. I wasn't really asking but that was a great

answer!

Edit...I hope that did not sound short. My eyes were getting dilated and it had to be "short" but was not meant to sound snotty. Hoping this comes out OK, using BIG letters is strange.

[840high]

72. +1

[matt819]

8. He had an opportunity

And he blew it.

I voted for President Obama, and I'd vote for him again if I had the chance. But he blew it on the issue of prosecution of the war criminals, from the president on down to the specific low-level "I was just following orders" kidnappers and torturers. Instead, he chose to look forward. Big mistake.

Other big failure was not closing Guantanamo Bay. Yes, I know all the challenges, but he could have got it done if he was determined.

[L. Coyote]

12. Also, the opportunity to get rid of Bush's corrupt US attorneys, what the hell went wrong there?

You'd think the President of the USA was an intern at the world's largest corporate law firm, not the lead counsel for the government.

[former9thward]

21. Obama did what every other president has done.

He replaced the Bush attorneys during his first year as president. Out of the 87 he only held over one (in Maryland).

http://www.mainjustice.com/us-attorney-update/?sort=updated&dir=

[unc70]

79. No, he left Holding in NC for years

While Holding investigated nearly every Dem in the state! Holding got to decide when he would step down. He waited until he was ready to file for his successful election as a Repub US congressman.

That really sucked, still does!

[former9thward]

86. If he was held over it was Obama's decision.

Not Holding. U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, not the other way around.

[unc70]

87. Obama left him in until Holding said he was done

Part of this looked like payback. Holding was investigating John Edwards and a number of prominent Dems who had supported Clinton. These constant investigations probably cost us dearly in the midterms in NC.

The most prominent case was against Edwards who was found not guilty in Federal court.

[Hulk]

39. Imagine he had gone forward with prosecutions..

The repuKKKes stonewalled and obstructed at every turn. The Erich wing radio and fox propaganda have already doused him in shit and set him on fire.

Just saying....imagine where this country would be had the war criminal circus prevailed for the past eight years. NONE of them would have been found guilty of doing anything wrong, in our corrupt justice system.

They know they are war criminals. The world knows they are war criminals. And more than half the country knows they are guilty of war crimes. We only escaped eight years of further splitting this fragile democracy further. This country is still barely holding together. A war crimes proceeding would have had riots in the streets.

I want to see them hang as bad as the next person. They live in shame, or should. That is the best this fucked up justice system can ever expect. Look how they are rewriting history as it is.

[My Good Babushka]

46. I don't believe that this country is too fragile for justice

I don't think it can be strong without it.

[questionseverything]

59. who know what the person that covers for criminal behavior is guilty of?

obstruction of justice

the torturers sexual abused children in front of their parents to get them to talk...letting that go because dems are scared of the repub staging a brooks brothers type riot is more evil than i can handle

[FairWinds]

9. OK, sure, but what are you going to DO about it?

I joined Veterans For Peace, and am involved in several of their projects.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

You don't have to be a vet to join.

[My Good Babushka]

41. Thank you.

I would like to find ways to be more vocal in the anti-war movement. Voting doesn't seem to give one very much opportunity to be heard.

[Solly Mack]

10. America said, in effect, 'Yeah, we tortured people. So, what?', heaping insult and disdain to injury

(The lack of prosecutions was little more than a 'So, what?')

Heinous treatment followed by contempt. A quick relegation to the past, behaving like the government's actions were an aberration and not the planned and intentional acts of a sick-minded government, whose orders were carried out by the equally sick-minded.

The surviving victims will forever have to live with the life-long effects of torture, and they will never have justice. Never.

But America rolls right along, acting as if it's no longer an issue. When you decide to push America's war crimes out of your mind or to defend the lack of prosecutions, then you have made the choice to allow it to happen again. You have told the world, I'm OK with torture.

And America has done just that. The whole of America's government has done that.

[choie]

33. Unfortunately there are people on this board who

also said "so what"

[sammythecat]

14. "we tortured some folks"

I don't know what it is, but there's gotta be a word for a sentence like that. Something along the line of bizarre or frighteningly creepy.

[Hiraeth]

22. psychopathically blasé attitude (sorry. more than one word, I tried)

[NJCher]

34. nail meet hammer

Did you ever call that one right. The second he said it, English teacher me had her back up like a cat.

It's an oxymoron of connotation. One doesn't call tortured individuals "folks." "Folks," if one uses the term at all (I personally hate it and never use it), should be used for the nice neighbors down the block, people at church suppers, that type of thing.

--------------

Well, anyway, I was going to post on this thread anyway to say that for me, it's the criminal regime (the U.S. gov't). What the hell is the matter with a government that can't even have a basic, decent human being in an office of power? I'm so sick of the way we ruin lives around the world.

That's why I support Bernie. Bernie is one of the few individuals with a sense of morality to stay in the political system we have. You can count the others using two hands.

This bothers me. I think about it every day. It would be such a relief if we could stop the endless wars and conduct this nation in a way that respects others and their right to carry on their lives in peace.



Cher

[PWPippin]

109. I fully agree about the use of "folks".

It was creepy when Bush used it frequently and, somehow, more so when Obama uses it.

[A Simple Game]

15. And I hope people realize that if it comes to a choice between military spending and

Social Security, that this President would choose military spending. His former Secretary of State would too, without even blinking an eye.

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. Truth!

[Phlem]

17. It has accomplished making the MIC ever larger and dependant on

more wars.

Which in turn make people more rich.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round. All she has to say is "Woops, it was a mistake" and all her flock are just fine with it, old news, water under the bridge (along with the deaths of innocents).


P.S. a lot of people have no problems seeing this except Hillary supporters. I had one claim that Hillary NEVER voted for the Iraq war.

Yep, that's the mentality.

[truebrit71]

18. That was when it became blindingly obvious...

...but he'd been on that path for a good long while...

[bjo59]

19. Agree absolutely.

[NorthCarolina]

20. We don't really have two political parties in America,

we have one corporate special interest political party that goes by two different names.

[Hiraeth]

23. I like to call one *dog* and the other *pony*. maybe that is just me.

[NorthCarolina]

24. Or

"Good cop", "bad cop".

[Hiraeth]

25. and they are so gracious about taking turns!

[bigwillq]

26. Perfect.

I agree.

[Hiraeth]

29. !

[Buzz Clik]

28. Yeah. It all started there. We'd never been in a war before. Thanks, Obama.

[choie]

35. Jeesus christ you will excuse anything

as long as Obama or Clinton is involved

[Bradical79]

36. That's not what was said or even implied

I think you know that though.

[Buzz Clik]

49. re-read the second paragraph of the OP.

Or don't. I couldn't care.

[Bradical79]

58. I did. Read it a third time too. My response is 100% accurate.

[My Good Babushka]

43. I'm talking about the moment for me

when I gave up expectations that the administration I voted for would ever expiate the crimes of the former administration. And they were crimes.

[Buzz Clik]

50. Ok, thanks for the clarification. But, the second paragraph of the OP...

... kinda suggests otherwise. But, that was the way I interpreted it, and not your intent.

Fair enough.

[Arugula Latte]

31. I have no doubt that Hillary as prez will keep the wars going to make her corporate base happy.

Remember, free stuff for giant wealthy corporations = Good. Free stuff for greedy peons who want affordable healthcare and college = Bad.

[Indydem]

32. Exaggerate much? Or perhaps you love hyperbole.

Khmer Rouge was responsible for the deaths of 2 million people.

Total body count in the "war on terror" is nowhere half that, from any reputable count.

[My Good Babushka]

40. Between 1.3 and 4 million

“Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to ‘an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq.’”

Similar figures for Afghanistan, he reports, could bring totals to four million or more.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-war-on-terror-has-killed-4-million-muslims-or-more-do-the-math/5467349

[Indydem]

44. Well, there's a lot wrong there.

The sanctions regime cited there started long before the war on terror. Like, a decade before the first bullet.

Secondly, the Nagy study has been widely discredited as bogus and inflated.

Like I said - serious and legitimate numbers.

[My Good Babushka]

55. I believe the doctors

of the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). After thirteen years of perpetual war, that sounds like a very reasonable and low estimate to me.

[Indydem]

60. Believe whoever you want.

Doesn't make you any less wrong, or the data any less bogus.

[My Good Babushka]

62. You're welcome to post the studies

you would have the forum cite for this discussion, and their credentials.

[Indydem]

66. IBC is still the most accurate

It is publicly sourced and draws from a number of sources. The fact that your study ignorantly tries to use Najaf to disqualify it shows that the authors are either disingenuous or plain ole stupid.

[Orrex]

75. Still waiting for your total count of non-violent deaths

Alternatively, perhaps you can indicate why these are excluded from your tally?

[Orrex]

61. Give us a precise figure. How many dead civilians is too many, by your count?

Last edited Tue Apr 26, 2016, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

If "nowhere half of" 2M isn't a big deal, then how many would it take?

I'm inclined to accept the figures put forth by the OP, but even if you don't like that number, it's obscene to ignore the overall and ongoing atrocity simply for the sake of quibbling about a rounding error.

Total body count in the "war on terror" is nowhere half that, from any reputable count.

Then I'm sure that you'll have no trouble posting links to these "reputable counts."

[My Good Babushka]

64. Baby, you're so sweet

xoxo

[Orrex]

74. *smooch*

[Indydem]

65. There are a number of sources.

The most reliable is the public sourced Iraq Body Count

https://www.iraqbodycount.org

[My Good Babushka]

67. That only cites death from violence

I'm talking about all the deaths, not only direct hits, but also death from contaminated water, broken sewage systems and their accompanying diseases, dysentery, cholera, environmental pollutants and cancers from war refuse, childhood deaths and deaths in childbirth that were preventable if a health care infrastructure was operational... I mean all of the deaths. They all count.

and add 64 for today.

[felix_numinous]

37. That was chilling

though there were many signs before that we had fallen into despotism, the ways of Bush never left.

[zentrum]

38. Except they are not

…..behaving stupidly or blindly given who and what they are serving. Perpetual arms sales! Pillage of resources! Overthrow of democratically elected governments, if necessary! Privatization of countries! Enforced trade policies that essentially create corporate fascism!

They may destroy the planet but they are extremely purposeful. Nor do they want to end terrorism in any real way. The "war on terror" is very useful for keeping this racket going.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. Completely agree. "We tortured some folks" Really...

[Mira]

45. How very well you summed it up

when I remember that moment some lights came on and others went out.

[My Good Babushka]

69. That's a good way to describe the feeling. nt.

[Victor_c3]

51. I never really thought our safety was really a concern

Our leaders know exactly what they are doing.

History has shown over and over again that when we put our dicks somewhere where they don't belong that it always creates a security issue for us. Either our leaders are idiots who haven't learned a single bit of history or they peddle war in the name of profits.

Even george bush (and obvious idiot) clearly noted that war is good for our economy so I doubt our leaders are clueless when it comes to this. It's even obvious to the idiot!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/bush-war-boosts-the-us-ec_n_592444.html

[tularetom]

53. Reminded me of the "Otter defense" from Animal House

The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or tortured some folks; we did. (wink wink)

Unfortunately, it could get worse.

[democrank]

57. "We tortured some folks" seems a bit casual

based on the the awful suffering we caused and that giant chunk of principle we sacrificed.

But, just this morning Ed Rendell mentioned how the Iraq War vote was "a long time ago" so maybe we`re supposed to just forget about it.

[tclambert]

63. Torture works . . . for producing false confessions.

If that's what they want, as many torturers do, then they can help supply propaganda. Otherwise torture is only for the entertainment value. Good interrogators try to get their subjects to cooperate willingly, to get suspects or enemies to flip. That's when you get the good stuff.

America used to be better than this. We condemned the Japanese, and the North Koreans, and the Chinese, and the North Vietnamese for torturing our soldiers to get ridiculous false confessions. We called their actions war crimes and prosecuted many for it. And we cultivated a reputation for treating prisoners well. A German World War I veteran reportedly told his son, heading off to fight in World War II, "Fight bravely, and surrender to the first American you meet."

[Fast Walker 52]

70. Rec x1,000.... such an important point

So much of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "confessed to" is clearly bullshit.

It's also totally disgusting that we can't try suspected terrorists in Guantanamo because they've been corrupted by terrorism, and we're too chickenshit to release them.

[FlatBaroque]

76. The War on Terror is a strategic plan

Hatched by the Israelis, brought to America by the neocon Zionists, and designed to create a long term enemy for the benefit of proving cover for the genocide in Palestine, and a permanent revenue stream for the MIC and the spy agencies.

[Kalidurga]

77. This primary season has forced me to examine my values

I voted for Obama and I still think he was the best choice on the ballot. At least the first time around. The second time around well he was the only one on the ballot that wasn't completely in the tank for the 1% and even if I wasn't using the terms of OWS at the time because that didn't happen yet, I was very well aware of what the 1% is and I will vote against that each and every time I get a chance to.

However, I do think Obama should have gone after war criminals and yes he does say torture is wrong and that is a good thing to say. But, I think he could be a lot stronger on that issue. He could link our views on torture to our being desensitized to the suffering that goes on right under our noses in places like the Appalachian mountains and Downtown San Francisco where homeless people struggle in ways we wouldn't want to see happen to our kin. But, it's okay they must deserve to live in abject poverty.

[Thespian2]

94. Obama answered your question

when he said that American citizens should not be able to sue the Saudi Arabian government because that would set a precedent for people in other countries to sue the USA...If he had prosecuted the Bush regime for war crimes, he could be prosecuted for his war crimes...I think he did not want to be prosecuted for his drone attacks on innocent people...

[Kalidurga]

101. Oh well there you go CYA rules

[Thespian2]

116. Especially among the

super-wealthy...

[Sunlei]

78. Republican Admin. crimes we ALL have to 'pay for' and acknowledge forever.

[malaise]

80. War is profitable for some folks

The justification is simple - EMPIRE

[yellowcanine]

83. "Tangled rat-king of war criminals" would be a great name for a punk rock band.

[90-percent]

84. The "War on Terror" has improved things by 1,400%

That is to say, after we declared our "War on Terror" after 9-11, deaths caused by acts of terrorism increased 1,400%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017321604

-90% Jimmy

[Scuba]

89. Now, now, don't be sanctimonious.

It was just a little torture after all.

[Dont call me Shirley]

91. "Impeachment (and obviously indictment of the war criminals) is off the table" Pelosi.

[nikto]

93. The REAL REASON for the War On Terror ...

[Bucky]

96. I think it was the fake folksiness of "some folks" that bothered me

almost as much as the torturing part. You don't torture folks. You torture victims--even the evil ones shouldn't be tortured, not because they're not the bad guys, but because we're supposed to be the good guys. But of course as the record makes clear, plenty of innocent "folks" got tortured when the president of the United States villainously announced we should 'take the gloves off'

[Rex]

98. The MIC needs perpetual warfare to keep the economy afloat.

Ain't that some shit.

[Doctor_J]

99. Another one of the things the DU right wingers are OK with as long as Obama and Clinton do it

It's killing the party, BTW

[3catwoman3]

100. The so-called war on terror...

...seems like cutting off the head of the Hydra. More grow back.

[MasonDreams]

104. Remember Bll Hicks?

my apologies if I am mischaracterizing or have something wrong I am dead dog tired. I think Mr. Hicks used to say " When a new Pres. takes office the NSA CIA etc sit Prez down & show him the Zapruder film of JFK's last moments. then they lay down the law. WAR SUCKS but many wackos will not allow change.

[Skittles]

105. no one has been held accountable

Obama told us we needed to "Look forward" and his rabid fans thought that was just swell

[emsimon33]

106. K&R

[pat_k]

107. After he granted the torturers blanket immunity...

... I had to turn the TV off anytime he came on. I couldn't watch him without feeling ill.

And when he declared hat he had banned torture... it was just too much. How the hell can you "ban" something that's already a crime? You prosecute crimes. You don't say, "Well, we'll give these murders a pass, but now I'm banning murder, and this time I really mean it."

And of course, in claiming the power to "ban" he was also claiming the power to "unban."

[Bad Dog]

110. It's achieved one thing.

Jihadists have become even more violent and extreme. IS make Al Qaida look like a bunch of boy scouts.

Oh yeah and the 7/7 bombings in London.

Thanks a bunch America.

[alarimer]

112. Nothing will ever get better. Ever.

We have been sold a bill of goods, by all parties, by virtually all politicians. They like their wars; it keeps the corporations happy.

[treestar]

118. How did the President "decline" to prosecute them?

Prosecutions are undertaken when the prosecutors thinks they have enough evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even Dubya had them prosecuted. Wasn't Lynndie England one of them?

[GummyBearz]

121. My thoughts as well. n/t

[Iggo]

122. On second thought...

...I'm still way too pissed off about this to talk nice.