BREAKING NEWS: Obama leaves door to open to prosecutions over Bush-era interrogations

[YDogg]

Source: MSNBC.com

BREAKING NEWS: Obama leaves door to open to prosecutions over Bush-era interrogations



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com /

---

Headline on the website ... more to follow.

[subsuelo]

1. Woww! That's great

[No Elephants]

43. Did you read the story and actually think about it? Please

do. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495 / And please see Post # 36.

[bjobotts]

159. This has nothing to do with Obama.The AG works for us not the WH

[bjobotts]

160. Obama doesn't get to say who gets prosecuted.DoJ is apolitical.It carries out the law

[bjobotts]

161. DoJ does not take orders from the WH. It's not up to Obama.That would be illegal

[bjobotts]

172. BREAKING NEWS: Eric Holder is leaving the door open not Obama.

[Reterr]

185. Stop replying to yourself man-its fucking weird.eom

[shagsak]

209. He does that to boost his post count

I've encountered that guy before, he's a douch and subsequently on my ignore list (the list is short)

[DS1]

2. NOOO! This can't be! I need to bash Obama at the drop of a hat

and NOW he's RUINING EVERYTHING!

[lostnotforgotten]

200. Obama Copped Out - DOJ Is Keeping Hope Alive

eom

[Beetwasher]

3. Yup, Obama's Playing This Right

Drip drip drip.

He needs to keep his hands out of it though and let Congress and DOJ do their job w/ MUCH PRESSURE FROM US THE GRASSROOTS!!!

But Obama NEEDS to stay above the fray and take a hands off approach so it is NOT politicized.

[YDogg]

5. agreed

[justaregularperson]

151. Actually he is responding to pressure. Not that it is bad to do so.

Phones have been lighting up. I was one of them. Without pressure he would feel like there will be no back up and only the opposition.

[bjobotts]

163. He's responding to his duty to stay out of it. Learn how government works

[bjobotts]

164. The DoJ would be "politicized" if Obama says who they could prosecute.

[justaregularperson]

175. Get off your high horse

There was no call for that.

I called my Representatives. I don't expect Obama to advocate. But he is a key figure and he could cause a lot of difficulty by getting in the way or keeping his DOJ from doing their work (or clinging to abusive power like with the wire tapping). It is good to see him respond. What is innapropriate about a President responding to public concerns?

Welcome as you are only the third to make my ignore list. I am not interested in reading about your feelings of superiority. I don't need to "learn" civics from you, thank you.

[NoSheep]

183. Nope. He has allowed the public to see the truth; the only way he could hope to take

this position. Also, a case has to be made. It takes time; AND we have a country in financial ruin.

[NoSheep]

184. self delete dupe

[thevoiceofreason]

9. And keep the CIA friendly

[Beetwasher]

10. Yup, Notice How Obama Came Out And Thanked The CIA

for their service and promised to keep their identities secret and keep them safe?

It's all part of the same thing.

He's firming up his support there while letting the info needed to prosecute dribble out.

He knows what he's doing.

[Baby Snooks]

24. Keep the CIA friendly?

Why does he need to keep the CIA friendly?

[havocmom]

33. Many leaders have been taken down by their own guards.

History is a valuable resource.

[alfredo]

80. Obama's move will make the CIA more willing to cooperate with prosecutors.

[BelgianMadCow]

88. that's an optimistic thought

I also had. If you really WANT to catch any of the cabal you need everybody in the chain pointing back up.

[alfredo]

97. That's an old police method. Turn the underlings.

[BelgianMadCow]

102. last time I had that sentiment / hope was with Fitzgerald

and even if he couldn't go all the way he did deliver imho.

The TARP cop thing http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... also gives hope. I don't know if a Special Inspector General has enough power.

Is Scooter in prison yet? Or pardoned? How's the civil trial going? I should know and I don't.

[alfredo]

115. Scooter was a good soldier for the junta, so he got his stint in prison

commuted. I don't know of any other actions against him.

What has changed for the junta is they don't have the protections that come with the office.

I'm sure there are more than a couple CIA agents that still harbor hard feelings about the outing of Plame and her front company.

[Odin2005]

143. Yup. don't piss off the Praetorian Guard.

Just subvert them.

[RollWithIt]

141. Because the CIA simply follows the rules set forth by the Executive Branch...

And if the Executive breaks the law, they are the ones responsible. Not some guy just following what he's told to do. You open the door to prosecution of the big guys, and cut off the little ones.

[shellgame26]

162. "why does he need to keep the CIA friendly"?

R E M E M B E R J F K

[zipplewrath]

16. That's been the most confusing

I would have presumed a more hands off approach. But instead, he's chosen to be out ahead of the DOJ. Much of the pain this weekend was from his Chief of Staff's comments on Sunday. Which appeared to be re-enforced on Monday by Obama himself at the CIA. He seems to be narrowing who can and will be prosecuted. That's what's confusing. He's getting out ahead and making statements which seem to exonerate just about everyone. Only recently have we seen back pedaling on the authors of the memos. But they should merely be the first of many folks. Ultimately, many of the folks that actually conducted the torture basically asked to do it. They weren't "following orders", they were seeking permission/cover. He has wiggle room, but he only has to wiggle because he's talking at all. One would expect him to leave this to DOJ officially, or at least withold comment.

[Beetwasher]

21. No, He's Not Exonerating Everyone, You Have To Carefully Parse His Statements

It's politics.

He cannot freak out the CIA, so he has to be careful w/ what he says and make sure they do not feel threatened. The career people at CIA need to know he's not coming after them so they will 1. cooperate and 2. continue to faithfully carry out their duties and work w/ him on ongoing.

He has said he will not prosecute the agents who "acted in good faith". That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

[No Elephants]

50. Zipplewrath did not say everyone and s/he did parse Obama's statements very well, IMO. Do you

have any idea how hard it is going to be to prove that a CIA agent did NOT act in good faith when there were legal opinions saying it was ok?

Question: Mr. CIA interrogator. Were you acting in good faith reliance on the legal opinions or did you know in your gut that the legal opinions were bullshit? Bear in mind, that if you say that you did know that, we will prosecute you. However, if you do not admit to it, we have no way of proving otherwise and therefore will not be able to prosecute you.

Now, are you a sadistic rogue agent who was scared out of your conscience and lawfulness by 911, or did you simply act in good faith reliance on the legal opinions of very well credentialed lawyers like Yoo and Gonzalez?

[Beetwasher]

54. If They Tortured BEFORE Legal Cover

They did NOT act in good faith. If they went BEYOND what was outlined in the memos they did NOT act in good faith.

Not hard. Not hard at all.

But keep up your bashing. You are exposing yourself for what you really are.

[No Elephants]

92. As are you. And I am fine with that. BTw, a person can act in a good faith

belief that their actions are authorized, even without a legal opinion. And, as I have already posted, proving absence of good faith beyond a reasonable doubt is quite difficult.

[Beetwasher]

98. No, It's Not Difficult, As I've Posted, If They Tortured BEFORE The Memos

or went beyond what was in them, they are still on the hook. That's NOT hard to prove w/ access to the appropriate evidence.

[Igel]

81. Interesting.

So you're saying he's leaving room to prosecute those who did nothing except write a legal memo--not even giving the order; or those who gave the order to use these methods.

But those who were just following orders and didn't think they were wrong are off the hook. What, pre-emptive application of the nuremburg defense by the prosecution? For purely political purposes, of course.

[Beetwasher]

86. So You Have A Problem W/ Investigations?

To determine who did what and then deciding who should be prosecuted? Maybe we should just hang everyone you think is guilty w/ out investigations and trials!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

42. I agree

What Rahm Emmanuel said on ABC on Sunday made it seem like the case was closed to prosecution. But now it's not? I will concur that Obama is much smarter than I am so maybe he knows what he is doing. But it certainly is confusing.

[No Elephants]

51. Trust your gut. Maybe you are confused because that is exactly what Obama wants you to be.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

55. Maybe so. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. "Trust your gut."

Truthy.

[disndat]

139. Absolutely!

Obama seems to have a strategy. Also the previous DU poster was right. Pbama probably need the full cooperation of the C.I.A. The reason why he put Panetta in charge of the Agency.

[No Elephants]

46. You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say he is playing it right.

On the other hand, you say that he needs to stay out it and let Congress and the D of J do their job. That is not what he is doing. Please read the story Post # 36 and the entire MSNBC story, not just the headline. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

111. If Obama takes focus off of the economy then the public will be pissed....

that doesn't mean the torture memos should just 'go away'. Let someone else handle that mess. All Obama needs to do is sign any bills passed that says "GET THESE FUCKERS"

[louis-t]

112. Agree wholeheartedly.

He's playing it perfectly. A constitutional scholar as president? Hmmmm.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

119. EXACTEMENTE!

[monmouth]

4. You had to know he wasn't going to persue this himself. That's why

the memos were released and why we're seeing so much of the National Dick on the TV. Obama is leaving doors open so others may enter. Again chess vs. checkers!

[No Elephants]

60. So, why is he trying to limit this to lawyers and those who acted in bad faith, when

proving bad faith under these circumstances is going to be almost impossible? And why is he trying to caution Congress against investigating "too intensely?" And insisting that the investigation be "bipartisan?" How much do you think Republicans in Congress want this investigation? Why is Obama giving them ammunition?

[EFerrari]

108. "Good faith" is a red herring. It has nothing to do with it.

And remember, they had no legal cover for months before those memos were produced. The production of the memos themselves may also be a crime -- there's a report in te works about that.

Obama is going to try to protect himself. He has to and, imo, he's right to do that even if I disagree with him at every point in this process.

[RDANGELO]

6. Probably meaning the people who gave the legal opinions and

the orders.

[Beetwasher]

8. And The Torturers

Who tortured BEFORE the legal opinions and/or went beyond what was outlined in them and/or didn't act in "good faith".

There will be plenty of people who can/should/will hopefully be prosecuted. There's lot's of wiggle room in what's been said by the admin. on the matter.

[No Elephants]

62. Did Obama mention prosecuting the people who gave the orders?

[bjobotts]

165. It's not his job to say who gets prosecuted though he can give an opinion.

[bjobotts]

166. The Attorney General does not work for the president.The AG carries out the law...

[bjobotts]

167. The AG does not "make' the law, nor does the president.. Congress does.

[tomp]

177. apparently it's his job to say who doesn't get prosecuted, though. nt

[Igel]

83. Personally, I'd like to know

the legal basis for prosecuting Yoo. If you give bad legal advice and I follow it, you've committed malpractice and can be disbarred. But if I don't follow it, can you still be disbarred?

And is this something that goes through the federal courts? Does it matter if you believed it was based on sound reasoning?

[No Elephants]

89. Very astute question! If a lawyer gives advice for which he has no basis,

he has indeed committed malpractice, whether anyone follows his advice or not, whether anyone pursues the matter or not. However, if no one followed his advice, no one was damaged by it, so no one is likely to sue the lawyer for malpractice. The person who received the bad advice could complain, though, to the state board of bar overseers or, I guess, to a court where the lawyer is admitted to practice.

Lawyers can be disbarred for malpractice, but only by the state or courts that admitted him to the bar in the first place. Neither the D of J nor Congress can disbar him for malpractice. Not under current law and practice, anyway. If you remember, Arkansas disbarred Clinton, not Congress. (He is reinstated now, though, btw.)


We are talking about possible criminal prosecution, though, not a civil malpractice case or a complaint to the state "licensing" board.

To get a convinction for any crime, the government has to prove all elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt and intent is an element of every criminal case. Sometimes, though, recklessness can fulfill the requirement of intent.

You may be able to prove that A waterboarded B with the intent of waterboarding B and then prove that waterboarding is torture.

What you would have to prove to convict a lawyer of a crime is something else again. Malpractice may be a reason to award monetary damages in a civil case to someone injured by the malpractice. It may also be a reason to disbar the attorney. However, as far as I know, making a mistake in giving a legal opinion, in and of itself--meaning no theft of funds from a client or other extenuating circumstance, is not a crime for which the attorney goes to jail. I certainly could be wrong, but I have never heard of a lawyer going to jail for erring when giving a legal opinion.

Even at Nuremberg, I don't know of lawyers who got convicted, though I believe judges may have.

Lawyers give advice and opinions. They don't decide what the client actually does. The client does that. And the client of these lawyers told us again and again that he was the decider.

On edit. Okay. I just did some research, which I should have done in the first place. Here's an article that says lawyers have been convicted, but I have not yet read enough to know if they were convicted simply for issuing incorrect opinions. http://www.slate.com/id/2206518/

[Usrename]

131. This is a conspiracy case, it has very little to do with legal opinions.

Other than the fact that these particular legal opinions are supposed to carry the force of law, they are irrelevant.

They were nothing but a tool that was used in a conspiracy to commit war crimes.

According to the Nuremberg Principles, the act of complicity is its own war crime. These lawyer guys were all complicit.





Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.



Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

[tomp]

178. but with whom were they conspiring?

i believe the conpiracy is not just between the doj and the white house, but also between both and the cia, the ones obama has decided to tell everyone are off the hook.

[Egnever]

7. Not possible

He loves torture!

I read it on DU I know its true!

[tridim]

12. And his supporters love torture too!

Ironically it's the bashers and the "I'm smarter than Obama" people who are torturing themselves daily.

[Egnever]

22. I have been dreaming of being able to torture for years!

Thats why I first supported obama!

You would think as many times as these people have come out looking foolish they would have learned to have a little faith in the guy by now.

[natrat]

137. no obama is smart- the bots are a little dim

[No Elephants]

53. Really? You should be able to link to that post then. Are you able to link to it?

[Egnever]

66. Sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVGtbV5Qc74

[No Elephants]

73. You Tube is showing a post that you read on DU? Huh. Imagine that.

[flvegan]

11. So potentially it's up to the DOJ and/or Congress to act?

Good volley, Obama. Put it in their lap, but don't let them drop it.

[seemslikeadream]

13. Separation of powers Obama actually had NO say in this

He can not tell the Juctice Dept what to do and what not to do

[Beetwasher]

14. Yup, People Are Finally Starting To Get It, I've Been Saying It For Weeks

Obama is playing this right. He needs to stay above the fray and let the legal process work it out.

[Connie_Corleone]

20. I made it my tagline because a lot of people aren't getting that fact.

[seemslikeadream]

31. The Justice Department HAS to be separate from the White House

[No Elephants]

95. There are good reasons for appointing a special prosecutor. It's why Janet Reno

was not the one to investigate Clinton. There is theory and the ideal and then there is reality. Asking someone to buck or investigate the person who controls his or her job/paycheck/recommendatons is asking an awful lot of most humans.

[Baby Snooks]

28. No but his Attorney General can...

This is just more rhetoric meant to appease the masses who simply do not matter. The people do not matter. If they did Bush would be at the Hague at this moment. A president impeached, convicted, removed from office and turned over to the Hague. It was all off the table. Still is.

[seemslikeadream]

30. and Holder has no authority in the world court

[havocmom]

34. Separation of powers is back in style!

We may save the nation yet.

[stubtoe]

47. Isn't THAT good news! n/t

[lostnotforgotten]

201. Bully Pulpit - No Discussion Is A Cop Out On And An Excuse For Obama

He sure exhorts us to hope but says nothing about morality.

That behavior strains credulity.

[DURHAM D]

15. That article/video was just too long to wade through.

Do you think Obama has told Rahm yet? Rahm was known as one of two major "leakers" in the Clinton W.H. but his biggest problem - Rahm runs his own agenda, not the W.H. agenda.

[seemslikeadream]

18. I don't think Rahm runs the Justice Dept either

[Amonester]

17. I'll believe it when I'll see it.

In the meantime, keep writing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT /

Maybe Someone's Reading Afterall

[lostnotforgotten]

202. Very Skeptical Here As Well

eom

[Soylent Brice]

19. Soylent Brice is *staying tuned* for further details...

...enthusiastically beyond belief.

finally, some decent fucking news.

[annabanana]

23. I can breathe again.... . .n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

25. Now THAT'S Change I can believe in!

[SkyDaddy7]

26. It has been open the whole time!!

I know many will pounce on me for trusting Obama but I am guilty as charged...I voted for the man because I trust him.

Obama does not and should not be the one who begins the long drawn out investigation that will be needed to get to the bottom of what happened and who is guilty of what...Obama has pressing problems that mean more to the everyday lives of Americans like health care. There are plenty other bodies that have the power of investigation! Obama has already done his part by releasing the memos. He said he would not pursue prosecution but he NEVER said he would not allow prosecution, BIG DIFFERENCE. IMHO.

A true investigation has to be done by an independent board and prosecutor...Plus, there is much more evidence coming that we don't even know about and I know Obama does. We only know some of every issue he must deal with. So, PLEASE question ever action any of our leaders do but I am choosing to not let my anger override my common sense. Thats just me so please don't rough me up.

[SeeHopeWin]

39. AMEN!

[havocmom]

41. agree. Just because one figures there is more going on than what is reported

does not mean one is giving Obama Administration a pass. Some recognize that things are done in stages if they are done well. The President needs to lead and address the critical issues that affect the most people first. Triage. He has whole departments of government to address the issues which must be carefully dissected so that the evidence survives and THEN legal actions can happen.

The very thing so many hated about bush malAdministration, the blurring of boundaries between agencies, and the supremacy of political considerations over all else, is what too many have wanted from this current administration. We would do well to consider that doing things well often means not doing them in haste. And there are things the President shouldn't be doing himself.

[Zhade]

84. Well, I'll believe it when I see it.

But good points on how b*s* was ultimately successful in making us *expect* those boundaries to not be enforced.

[condoleeza]

64. My thoughts on this exactly - well stated

people should never underestimate just how smart our President is. The signs have all been there since the day he took office that he was moving towards prosecution.

[YDogg]

27. MSNBC is now linking to a video with David Schuster reporting on the story ...

[derby378]

29. Video link: Obama "leaving the door open"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30326994#303269...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

32. Link to MSNBC story:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to possible prosecution of Bush administration officials who devised harsh terrorism-era interrogation tactics.

He also said Tuesday that he worries about the impact of high-intensity hearings on how detainees were treated under former President George W. Bush.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

But Obama did say, nevertheless, he could support a congressional investigation if it were conducted in a bipartisan way.

Obama has said he does not support charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, acting on advice from superiors that such practices were legal. But he also said that it is up to the attorney general whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving these tactics.

More... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495/

[YDogg]

37. thanks for the link

[mvd]

35. K&R

I wish he would have just said so to begin with, rather than have people like Emanuel hint that he was moving on. How could we disbelieve his chief of staff?

[No Elephants]

36. Sorry, this is DISGUSTING.. Congress has indicated a desire to investigate. Obama CANNOT prevent

Congress from doing that, but he sure is trying to make sure Congress does not investigate "intensely." And, he is trying to limit Congress to the lawyers.

Much as I disapprove of what the lawyers did, what the hell about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, etc. They were the ones who told the lawyers what they wanted those legal opinions to say.

And what about the "interrogators' who knew in their guts and minds that what they were doing was unlawful? Just because Obama wants to honor the Nuremberg defense, that does not mean Congress must.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[annabanana]

59. Isn't it smarter for him to let Congress take the lead?

All he has to do is not obstruct the wheels of justice.

[No Elephants]

70. It is not up to him to "let" Congress or to forbid Congress. Congress can do what it wants. How-

ever, he is the leader of the Party to which a majority of Congress belongs, so what he says can influence Congress--or why say it? Is he standing by silently? No. He's making comments about how Congress should handle this. Do his comments serve to cheerlead Congress, or are his comments attempting to circumscribe Congress's investigation?

Make your own decision, but please try to read between the lines of what he is saying.

Bear in mind as well, that he has probably had tons of negative reaction to his prior comments about not prosecuting and to Rahm's comments Sunday. And not from Republicans, either. So he makes this statement.

[caseymoz]

174. Actually, Congress can investigate it, but AG appoints the prosecutor.

Both are supposed to be making decision independent of the President-- the AG should be making decisions on legal not political grounds. At least that was the way it should work before the Republicans overwrote the rules. The most important thing he said here was that he would not interfere with the AG investigating it. That means, I hope, that Holder is free to investigate and prosecute, which is the way it should be. That is encouraging. Why he was saying the very opposite of what Rahm and Gibbs said, I don't know. Then there was his visit to the CIA, after the release of those damaging torture memos.

What the hell is going on? I don't know. It is a dance of some sort, but I don't recognize the step or the song.

Whatever Obama is telling Congressional Democrats, he wouldn't be telling them via the press. The only thing his mentioning this does is establish his position to the public, meant to keep him above the fray.

[No Elephants]

198. My post spoke exclusive to Congressional investigations, though. BTW, I don't

think he has changed his posibiton very much at all.

His position seems to be limit action, if any, to a few lawyers and those who tortured in "bad faith."

In so saying, he has created, for the first time I know of since Nuremberg, a category of "good faith torture." Once you create that, I don't see how you convict anyone.

I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that torture occurred. I can prove that the torturers tortured intentionally--that is to say that, for example, they did not waterboard accidentally.

Without the good faith/bad faith distinction, that is all I would have to prove to get a conviction for torturing. However, I doubt that I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone who tortured did so in bad faith vs. good faith. That's the Nuremberg Defense. It did not work then, but, apparently, Obama would like it to work now.

I disagree that Obama would not speak to Congress via the press. Presidents have done that for years, if not centuries. The idea is to get your side of things before both the media and the public before Congress does anything. You frame and define the issue that way, as well as giving the people who agree with your position additional ammo to use against Congress. (Framing the matter for the media and the public before anyone else has a chance to do so is NO small thing.)

Regardles, when a President does speak to the media about what Congress is doing or about to do, Congress knows what he has said to the people who vote them in and out of office.

[caseymoz]

231. The statute gives no separation of good and bad faith.

Neither does the treaty. No matter what he prefers, the only ways Obama can get around that is through 1) breaking the law; 2) Pardoning the ones who tortured "in good faith." Now, Presidents have broken the law, that's what this discussion is about, but it's too early to tell if Obama will do that. He doesn't dare pardon them, before their trial, at least.

Why the confusing messages from his administration? I mean, the release of the memos, the Obama chumming up to the CIA telling them nobody there will be prosecuted, Rahm stating there will be no trials, Obama saying that there might be . . . If I could conjecture: Obama knows Holder will prosecute, but he wants to be as far away from it as he can. He wants his administration to look like it is deeply divided and confused on the issue.

So, I expect indictments to start coming down, while Obama looks like he is uneasy about it. He won't fire Holder, though.

I'll conjecture something else: that if an investigation in Congress isn't done carefully, Repubs in Congress are likely to boycott and deny Congress a quorum. Maybe the Dems in Congress, and Obama, have been given warning about this.

[SeeHopeWin]

38. To all the Obama bashers:

[No Elephants]

40. Please step away from the Kool Aid.

[Demit]

67. And you should take a deep breath and wait & see how things unfold.

You seem to be angry that Obama hasn't laid out his game plan for you all at once. If you were sailing a boat, I bet you'd be the kind to head your boat straight for the shore regardless of what the winds were. Smart sailors tack.

[No Elephants]

72. How long do we wait? BTW, why do you think Obama is saying this now? Do you think he is saying i

because of all the Republicans who've been approving of his comments about not prosecuting? Or is he saying it because of so many Democrats have been criticizing him for those comments?

Waiting is not effective.

As far as what kind of sailor you imagine I will be, excuse me if I don't reply to personal stuff that you pull straight out of your ear.

[Demit]

129. I was using what is known as a 'metaphor.'

Tacking with the wind means you can't always get where you want to go in a straight line. You work with the elements and you eventually get there.

[Skittles]

156. you know it, N E

damn straight

[primavera]

94. So you're actually advocating for public disengagement from the policy process?

And you're a Democrat? "Shut up, don't ask questions, and do as you're told" is the slogan of the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party.

[Cetacea]

104. Ahh. I was just looking for that. Thanks!

[TankLV]

44. On CNN now too - GOOD FOR OBAMA!!!

He LISTENS to ALL of us!!!

better get some POPCORN for all the TORTURE APOLOGISTS/SUPPORTERS...

I, for one, am LOOKING FORWARD to WAR CRIMES TRIALS!!!

I agree, we gotta LOOK FORWARD to PROSECUTING and PUNISHING these sick TORTURERS...!

[Ganja Ninja]

45. Any prosecution of the Bush cabal is going to take some time.

Obama has to make it look like he's not too eager to prosecute.

[cindyfaulkner]

49. Hot damn

is all I have to say.

[cosmicone]

56. Can't wait to see Cheney in handcuffs n/t

[No Elephants]

65. That is not what Obama said.

[Egnever]

69. But it will be the end result.

[No Elephants]

74. Crystal ball? Or are you one of the double secret, double backwards sideways plan folk?

[Egnever]

78. Back at ya

you seem to think it wont happen is it your crystall ball telling you so?

[No Elephants]

85. "Seem to think?" Now you are a mind reader, too? I never made a flat statement that it

will never happen. So, you have no suppo