Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe

[Grassy Knoll]

Source: Mother Jones/Huffingtonpost

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. An April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

Read more: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation

[katandmoon]

1. Well, isn't that special!

[Enthusiast]

40. Very special.

And curious as hell. If one considers President Obama to be an actual Democrat that is.

[saigon68]

123. Its just "Bush Lite"

Move along nothing to see here

[saigon68]

125. More Torture and Death

[aquart]

2. Any particular reason?

[timo]

11. well for one

each administration, and I do mean each, is equally involved in some messed up foul business of some kind or another, so they as an act of good will do not pursue gutting the previous administration........I mean if the next incoming admin wanted to go after O as a war criminal for illegal drone attacks......

[JDPriestly]

16. We shall see. The Teabaggers were elected for one purpose --

to make life miserable for Obama. That is the Republican answer to Obama's failure to prosecute Bush or to permit his prosecution. Just you wait and see.

[timo]

18. ????

if you havent figured out by now that EVERY administration is involved up to their eyelids in shades of grey bullshit GLOBALLY, its a total backscratch as one admin leaves and another comes in, when bush was launching drones and blowing up kids it was a scandal, this admin does it and meh no biggie it had to be done, blowing up little kids and their moms is bullshit, regardless of who does it, but NO ONE is gonna get called out for it by Spain, least of all this admin!!!

[Enthusiast]

41. Torture isn't grey.

This is what distinguished us from our Imperialist and Fascist enemies in WWII. They tortured during the war and were held to account for it.

[karynnj]

45. Exactly - I am very disapointed that the Democrats did not repeal

what we called the "torture bill" when we had control of both Houses. That bill rammed through before the 2006 elections condoned torture according to Senators like Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, Leahy and other. His is a link to an incredibly strong indictment of the bill and the US using torture in a 5 minute Kerry speech. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession3786

Kennedy tried to pass an amendment that would at least outlaw 10 practices, including waterboarding that the military itself already prohibited- but it failed. We put people in prison for decades for waterboarding as Kennedy said in his speech - http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=595638891

Both speeches and others on that day are worth reviewing.

[Angry Dragon]

54. We, as a country, are the biggest terrorists in the world

Until all terrorists are brought to justice the world is in peril.

[DeadEyeDyck]

106. They were held accountable

because they lost. That is how war works

[dflprincess]

108. The U.S. and it's allies set precedents after WWII about how war criminals would be dealt with

at no time was it stated that those precedents would only apply to the losers.

We have signed treaties agreeing on how war criminals will be pursued and dealt with - and we didn not exempt any American war criminals from those treaties.

By refusing to cooperate with Spain Obama has violated the law.

[Enthusiast]

116. Right you are!

It wasn't a pony that we wanted, we only wanted a government that didn't operate outside the law. Especially when their motives were less than honorable. Of course their defenders would say their actions kept us safe. I call bullshit.

[Creative]

119. All sides tortured during WWII--it was a real war.

The Geneva Convention only applies if you are captured by the Genevans.

:sarcasm:

[Major Hogwash]

43. Agreed.

And in the process they will cause the GOP elephant to fall over onto its side, its right side.

They can't go that far to the right and expect everyone else to follow them, they don't have any gravity.
The farther to the right they go, the easier they are to ignore.
They have gone so far to the right that they make John Birchers look plain by comparison.

Fuck, a few months ago even McCain said he thought that they should have a frigging debate over the 14th amendment, for Christ's sake!!

[24601]

55. Maybe he was thinking ahead the to the things he has authorized

and didn't want to set the precedent of holding a former President accountable.

[ProudDad]

57. BINGO!!! (n/t)

[Larry Ogg]

104. How about we didn't want to upset the republican base...

Because in their misguided paradigm - they think democrats and liberals are the evil ones. So a big reason is to not tarnish the image of the Republican Party...

Long live the illusions of Democracy -- let the Predators Class reign without restraint and above the laws of conscience people.

[DeSwiss]

3. K&R

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/04/obama_torture_and_secrecy_betr.php">Obama: Torture and secrecy betray core American values

Chicago, IL | October 04, 2007

Chicago, IL -- Barack Obama today released the following statement in response to the new report in the New York Times this morning about the Bush administration's secret authorization of brutal interrogation techniques. For full story, click here:

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values," said Obama.

[Grassy Knoll]

4. This is so fucked up......

they talk their crap, but row the same boat, it's a goddamn shame.

[DeSwiss]

9. This is the part of the article that sickens me the most:

The previous month, a Spanish human rights group called the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners had requested that Spain's National Court indict six former Bush officials for, as the cable describes it, "creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture." The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel.

"It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorizat­ion of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constituti­on, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values," http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/04/obama_torture_and_secrecy_betr.php">said Obama.

- I wonder how the apologists will spin this one.....

[shanti]

58. well....

he said that as a senator. the rules changed when he became president :eyes:

[UpInArms]

10. and, in the process, tie the anchor around everyone else's neck

so sad

this was, once, a great country

[FinGovi]

37. The President of the USA

is a LIAR. And his Constitutional Scholarship means squat. President Barack Obama, Republican President from Illinois.

[Iowa]

51. Yep...

I will never vote for this snake again.

[BlueJac]

98. Obama in a nut shell

total bullshit!!! Fucking liar!

[Arrowhead2k1]

5. Way to disillusion the progressive base... nt

[unkachuck]

6. rogue nations....

....never follow established law, they make up their own rules as they go along....

[No Elephants]

7. It was obvious. One minute, the Spanish judge was all over Bushco like white

on rice and then, suddenly, we never heard another thing from him. I think there was even a story posted in LBN that America had gotten Spain to put a lid on it. The only part of this that is news to me is that Rethugs were in on it, too. I thought it was only a concomitant of the Obama administration's "Let's don't look back" policy.

[Bozita]

12. That "Let's don't look back" policy - Isn't every criminal trial an effort at looking back?

[No Elephants]

17. Yes., unless you count science fiction, like Speilberg's Minority Report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)

[FinGovi]

38. And this is probably

why there is an investigation into the actions of Judge Baltazar Garzon. An honest man who never feared going after the powerful murderers who act as our leaders.

[frylock]

8. damn you ralph nader!

[OnyxCollie]

13. !

:rofl:

[ProudDad]

115. Aw, give it a rest...

:eyes:

Gore surrendered...

[Mosaic]

14. The final straw

I will never support Obama again. Thanks for posting this.

[Iowa]

52. I won't either.

We desperately need a strong challenger in 2012. As an Iowan, I'll be at the Democratic caucuses supporting ANYONE but Obama. This snake is a fucking disaster.

[Metta]

15. Going around the block to get next door to Republicans.

How's that change thing working out, O? And, your karma?

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

19. k/r

[donheld]

20. And people wonder why we're giving up on Obama.

When will they wake up?

[Betty]

21. even when Obama does the dirty work for repugs,

they still piss all over him. You'd think they could show a little gratitude.

[Amonester]

32. Because, that's how they are WINNING against him (and US).

They don't care about Obama's 'feelings', nor ours.

Sociopathic 'winners' never show any gratitude to anyone but themselves...

[caseymoz]

61. Yes, and you know, they're never going to lay off him anyway.

As much as he helps them. They might as well still have Bush in the White House but you would never know it.

[QC]

22. Hopetastic! n/t

[Peace Patriot]

23. You want my theory? Here it is...

Circa 2006: Constant talk of a possible U.S. nuclear strike on Iran. But also serious rumblings in the military brass opposing it. (Too dangerous--Iran no pushover like Iraq was; and nuke powers China and Russia threatening to come into it, on Iran's side--potential Armageddon). Junior in deep doo-doo with the CIA over the outing of its entire WMD counter-proliferation project--not just Valerie Plame--they outed the whole network run under the Brewster-Jennings front company, endangering CIA agents/contacts throughout the world and probably getting some of them killed.** Rumsfeld and Cheney did it, but Junior signed off/went along. Fitzgerald puts Libby behind bars, says he was obstructed, points at Cheney (but says it's a political problem). 2005 had been all about this--who would take the fall? And Iraq is a mess--bloody, corrupt, chaotic. Early 2006, Daddy Bush forms his Iraq Study Group (ISG) to rescue Junior from CIA retribution and forms a coalition with military brass and others to stop the nuking of Iran, which Rumsfeld/Cheney are determined to do, and save Junior's skin. Take note: Leon Panetta (old CIA) is a member of Daddy Bush's ISG. They put a deal to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: No nuking of Iran. Rumsfeld has to resign. And Junior and Cheney will go quietly when the time comes. In exchange for, no impeachment or further investigation/prosecution for their many, many crimes.

The Democrats are permitted to win the 2006 Congressional elections (with lots of "Blue Dogs"). Nancy Pelosi announces that "Impeachment is off the table." (WHAT "table"?) Rumsfeld resigns, apropos of nothing (to appearances). (The "Blue Dog" Congress almost immediately funds the "surge" he wanted.) All talk of nuking Iran goes away. Pelosi travels to the Middle East to give the news to Israel and other allies. In the pre-arranged 'Gulf of Tonkin'-type incident to trigger the strike on Iran--British sailers caught in Iranian waters--Iran smilingly gives the sailors back.

The next problem is vetting the 2008 presidential candidates to insure that whoever enters the White House agrees to "the Deal." It is also decided that a weak "liberal" would be a good idea, to start taking the blame for the Bush Junta horrors and induced Depression. (The Bush Cartel and the far right billionaires running things have the power to do this. See below--my evaluation of Obama.) Ultimately, Obama passes the vetting (agrees to "the Deal") and gets elected--which I think he really was--and is also permitted to be elected, and very nearly the first thing out of his mouth is "we need to look forward not backward" on Bush Junta crimes. (They teach that at Harvard Law School?) And nobody gets prosecuted, or even investigated. Nada. Nothing.

Obama appoints ISG member Leon Panetta as CIA Director. There is a brief flutter of 'he ain't qualified/he's a civilian.' That goes away very quickly and he sails through Congress without another peep. One of his jobs was to stop the war between the Pentagon and the CIA--to heal the wounds that Rumsfeld (and Cheney) had inflicted--and another is to clean up after Junior. I could tell you a whole story about what I think the Bush Junta was doing in Colombia and why the Obama administration/Panetta are coddling and protecting the spying-connected, death-squad-connected, drug trafficking-connected recently ex-pResident of Colombia, Bush Jr pal Alvaro Uribe, but I won't go into it here, and you get the idea. Any loose ends around the world, that might attach to Junior, are being taken care of, with the Obama administration aiding and abetting Panetta (in the case of Colombia, involving serious sabotage of the Colombian justice system).

What do I think of Obama, if this scenario is true? He was probably well-intended and thought that he could do more good in the White House, even with very limited powers, than not in the White House. And "the Deal" and his agreement to it, if these things are true, would be no surprise to me at all. This is what we are now, not a democracy but the highly controlled and propagandized peons of an Empire over which we have no control. My investigations into our election system--how our votes are counted and by whom--were very shocking to me, especially that the Democratic Party leadership let it happen. Basically, one, private, far rightwing corporation--ES&S, which just bought out Diebold--owns and controls 80% of the voting machines in the country, which are run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY code, with virtually no audit/controls. This ultimate control mechanism makes it possible--makes it EASY--for the far rightwing and their allies to play our system like a piano. I think Obama actually won, by a bigger margin than we know, on the hopes of the American people for peace and social justice but he has no power to deliver either. And until we rectify this situation--get rid of these machines and restore vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE--there will not be, and cannot be, any serious reform.

What do I think of Obama now? I think he's going to have bad dreams in his retirement. A good man, sucked in by "the Powers," with terrible things being laid on his conscience.

Items like U.S. interference in Spain's justice system (the Wikileak OP) are best understood, in my opinion, are the inevitable result of "the Deal" that I have described or some similar Deal. Our candidates--besides being pre-selected by corporate money and corporate media--are NOT FREE to say what they think and do what is best. No free agent--a real representative of the People--will ever make it to the White House. No FDR, for instance, could ever be elected now. Things are VERY controlled, and if you want power within this Imperial system, you MUST agree to the controls. That is the price. You have to put a lid on your mind and your heart.

It doesn't do to just rail against Obama or Clinton or the Bushites. We need to understand what is going on. We must open our eyes and look for the strategies by which we can get our power back, as a People. I offer this theory--this scenario--in that spirit. It may be true. It may not be. It may be partly true. But it tries to go deep and also to come up with solutions.

And you WILL find me voting for Obama in 2012! I will never, ever, ever give up my right to vote. But I don't have the power to make them count it in public view. Only the collective will of all of us can accomplish that. And only when we accomplish that, as a People, will we begin to have real choices and real debate again and the chance at real reform.

-----

**(Sub-theory. Rumsfeld/Cheney's plan was to seque the Iraq War into Iran, then and there, soon after the invasion, and they had nukes in route to be planted in Iraq that were traceable to Iran or would be put in route to Iran. SOMEBODY foiled this plan--stopped the shipment. Rumsfeld/Cheney were furious. They were counting on the planted WMDs in Iraq for so many things (political narrative, expanded war). They suspected the CIA's counter-proliferation network. They suspected UN weapons expert David Kelly. They had Kelly offed and outed the entire CIA c/p network. Those two events--Kelly's murder and the CIA outings--happened within four days of each other in July 2003.)

[intheflow]

33. You should post this as an OP.

This is along the lines of how I've been thinking it went down as well.

[watrwefitinfor]

42. Absolutely correct. Please post as OP.

This has been my theory all along, since Poppy and his guys "came to the rescue" of W & his mess.

Thank you eternally, Peace Patriot for putting this all in such an easily understandable format. And PLEASE post it as an OP.

Wat

[Peace Patriot]

48. Okay. But I can't do it today. I'll post it as an OP tomorrow, Friday, 12/3/10 at 10 am PST

in DU "Editorials and other articles." I want to be here for the discussion and can't be today.

Or do you think I should post it in "General Discussion" or "General Discussion: Presidency," instead of "Editorials"? Not sure what would be best.

And thanks also to "intheflow" for suggesting this.

[robertpaulsen]

97. I look forward to it, Peace Patriot!

I think General Discussion might get your OP the widest audience, but Editorials should be fine too. I think the scope of your research goes much wider than President Obama's actions on this, so I'm not sure General Discussion: Presidency would be best. But whatever you choose, I'll keep my eyes open for it. I'm really looking forward to discussing some of the points you brought up more in depth. Panetta is an especially interesting character in this machine; google his name with Michael Ledeen to find a chilling perspective to counter the 'he ain't qualified/he's a civilian" fluff that dovetails nicely with your theory of "the Deal".

I'm also eager to learn more about what you think of what's happening in regard to US policy toward Colombia. Does Eric Holder have any influence on it? Or Michele Leonhart? Something about the whole Colombia-Venezuela situation smells vaguely reminiscent of the Oliver North-contra coke debacle.

But I especially agree with your biggest contention: with 80% percent of the voting machines controlled by one private far-right corporation, our elections have zero accountability. We can't even pretend to be a democratic republic until this is put to an end.

I can't wait to discuss all these matters in more detail on your thread tomorrow. Keep up the fantastic work, Peace Patriot!

[Peace Patriot]

111. I'll post it in General Discussion tomorrow at 10 a.m. Thanks for the suggestion.

And maybe I'll re-post it in "Editorials" later, with a link to the discussion, for people who missed it in GD.

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

Not absolutely certain, but Eric Holder pretty much had to have been involved in the extraditions of death squad witnesses from Colombia to U.S. This was arranged by Bushwhack ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield (whom Obama/Clinton left in place until recently), and Bush Jr pal Alvaro Uribe. In some cases, they just whisked these guys, who were spilling the beans to prosecutors, out of the country, over the vociferous objections of the Colombian prosecutors, and 'buried' them in the U.S. federal prison system by completely sealing their cases (an unusual procedure) in U.S. federal court in Washington DC. The excuse for this was drug charges--they were wanted by the U.S. on mere drug charges--but the real reason for it was likely the death squad disclosures and Uribe's (and Bush's?) culpability. There have been thousands of murders of trade unionists, human rights workers, teachers, community activists, journalists, political leftists, peasant farmers and others. Colombia was a lawless state with Uribe in charge of it. The Colombian military committed many of these murders itself--about half of the trade unionist murders, according to Amnesty International; the other half were being committed by rightwing paramilitary groups closely tied to the Colombian military. All this, with $7 BILLION in U.S. taxpayer dollars being larded on the Colombian military by the Bushwhacks.

Some 70 of Uribe's closest political associates, including family members, are under investigation or already in jail on charges of spying, bribery, connections to the death squads, drug trafficking and other crimes. It was only a matter of time before Uribe got nailed by very courageous Colombian prosecutors and judges. His most vulnerable crime may be spying. He was spying on everybody--judges, prosecutors, political opponents, trade unionists, NGOs. His chief spymaster, Maria Hurtado, was about to tell what she knows and last week got whisked away to Panama where she was given weirdly fast asylum (overnight) and six other spying witnesses are reported to be headed there. Panama's got a rightwing president who arranged it. He recently met with Uribe. But who I think is really behind it is Panetta. The rightwing president of Panama is taking a big risk, spitting on Colombia's justice system like this. That's a No-No in Latin American, where sovereignty is a BIG and important issue. One wonders what Panama got in return (promise of U.S. invasion, if the trade unions shut down the Canal?). (That's one possibility, given recent big U.S. military maneuvers in non-military--actually anti-military--Costa Rica.)

So they're cleaning house of anybody who could put Uribe behind bars. Why is he so important? That is the question. For instance, why doesn't the CIA just whack him, if he's got something on Junior. Dunno. But I think his having something on Junior is part of it. What he knows might also have even wider implications--for the U.S. military and its military 'contractors," for instance. (Sec of State Clinton just "fined" Blackwater for "unauthorized" "trainings" of "foreign persons" (don't know who) IN COLOMBIA "for use in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

There is also the notorious connection of Reagan/Bush players (and the CIA) to drug trafficking. That is a hard thread of this tapestry to track. One thing is for sure, that, $7 BILLION later, the cocaine just keeps flowing out of Colombia. Another important clue might be that Venezuela and Bolivia have never had more success at major drug gang busts since they threw the U.S. "war on drugs" out of their countries. They had several reasons for throwing them out. One of them was that the DEA was spying on them and in cahoots with fascist groups. Another might be that the DEA was hampering their efforts at effective control of major crime. Neither Chavez nor Morales is a militaristic fanatic on drugs--they both chew coca leaves--but major criminal networks are quite another matter. Could they be interfering in Bush Cartel or CIA drug trafficking, by engaging in REAL law enforcement? I simply don't know. And there is not much info about it, in corpo-fascist or alternative news sources. There is info but nothing much to "connect the dots." (Could this be another reason for extraditing the death squad witnesses on "drug charges"--what these witnesses know about the drug trade also needs to be buried?)

Anyway, there certainly is enough in the press, on the other issues--if you're paying attention--to know that SOMETHING is up, as to Uribe's (and Junior's) criminal liability in Colombia.

One more thing: Brownfield/Uribe last year secretly negotiated a U.S./Colombia military agreement, among other things giving all U.S. soldiers and all U.S. military 'contractors' total diplomatic immunity in Colombia. The Colombian supreme court recently declared the agreement unconstitutional. But the existence of the agreement, and the secrecy around its negotiation and signing (by Uribe) send up red flags. Why after more than a decade in Colombia, did the U.S. military need this agreement last year? It expanded the U.S. military presence to 7 more military bases in Colombia and gave them free use of all Colombian civilian infrastructure (airports, harbors, roads), but I think that the "total diplomatic immunity" provision is the key to understanding it. A very curious thing was said by those who were touting this agreement (after it became public)--Pentagon spokespeople, for instance--that it merely ratified existing arrangements. But why did they need a presidential signature on it so late in the day? (For future use at the Hague?)

Oh, there is yet another issue that might involve the Bush Junta, the Pentagon and/or the CIA, and that is Uribe's pervasive domestic spying. Were they providing "technical assistance"? Were they helping him blatantly break the law? And, what might be even worse, was the spying done to provide targets for the death squads and the military? (This might explain the rather extraordinary business of asylum for the spying witnesses in Panama.)

A Jesuit priest in Colombia recently wrote a letter to Georgetown University, charging Uribe with complicity in death squad murders early in his career and objecting to their giving Alvaro Uribe an academic position there. Georgetown is a Jesuit University (--which, interestingly, has George Tenet as an alumnus). Uribe was also given an academic sinecure at Harvard. And the Obama administration has honored him with a prestigious appointment to an international legal commission (Gawd, can you believe it?)--the one investigating Israel's firing on aid boats. This is what I mean by coddling. This bloodstained little mafioso is being protected.

[Demeter]

39. Show Us the Way Out! Is there a way out?

I really want my country back, and it's nothing like the Teabagger whining, either.

[Peace Patriot]

50. Well, I think we need a REAL 'Boston Tea Party,' not this "Madhatter Tea Party" thing out of "Alice

in Wonderland." First, the voting machines. And, as we can't just seize them and dump them into 'Boston Harbor' (so to speak), without bringing the violent corporate state down upon our heads... --I mean, they are OUR machines. We paid for 'em, though we have no control over their 'TRADE SECRET' code. But so is the U.S. military. We have to be realistic... --We need a nationwide citizen movement, active in local/state jurisdictions, to demand a return to paper ballot vote counting IN PUBLIC VIEW, or possibly conversion of the 'TRADE SECRET' machines (and central tabulators) to OPEN SOURCE software with a substantial audit. (Venezuela does this--open source--with a whopping 55% audit--more than five times the minimum needed to detect fraud in an electronic system. Half the states in the U.S. are doing NO AUDIT AT ALL. They have no paper trail. The other half are mostly doing a meager 1% audit--with 'TRADE SECRET' code machines!)

Personally, I think this is an essential first step. We have to be able to verify our elections. And it is still doable. There is NO federal law requiring electronic voting. It was all done with corruption--$3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle from the Anthrax Congress and intense and very corrupt lobbying of our state/local legislators and election officials. So it can be UNDONE at this level. Local/state jurisdictions still hold the power to decide on voting systems. And that's really the only level at which ordinary people still have potential power. Forget Congress.

Until we strip private corporations out of our vote counting system--and, really, we're talking about mainly about ONE corporation (ES&S/Diebold)--and can be sure that the person who takes office was in fact elected, we can't even properly analyze our political system and decide on firm strategies. What if the people are, in some cases, actually voting for assholes? That's a different (but of course related) problem.

Transparent vote counting is the BOTTOM LINE of democracy. We MUST restore it. And doing this--kicking the corps out of the tabulation of our votes--also has big symbolic value, for these mega-corps are the problem everywhere we look. But we've got to have that bottom line of democracy before we can do anything else.

[Demeter]

60. Mad Hatter Tea Party Describes It Perfectly!

I'm stealing it and hoping to help it go viral.

Absolutely we should dump the machines in the harbor.

[Peace Patriot]

109. Feel free! I've been thinking that the "Mad Hatter's Tea Party" perfectly describes this mockery

of our democratic traditions, that is being perpetrated by the corpo-fascist media, and I've been hoping that it would catch on somewhere.

If we were to get "conspiratorial" at all, we might do some guessing about this corpo-fascist-media promoted, Koch Bros. financed, joke of a "Tea Party" "phenomenon" having been a deliberate, conscious attempt, by some diabolical rightwing "think tank," to pre-empt the real thing-- 21st century Americans reviving the spirit of the REAL "Boston Tea Party" to overthrow our Corporate Rulers, who are every much as oppressive of us as the British East India Company was oppressive of the early American colonists. Our Corporate Rulers must greatly fear that story (the real one) quite a lot. I do think that "diabolical rightwing 'think tanks'" are creating these kinds of psyops (right out of the CIA playbook). The one about reversing "the Vietnam Syndrome" (Americans hatred of unjust war) comes to mind. Now war is is a given. The Forever War. I'm sure there are a lot of examples. And I'm reminded, too, who financed ES&S originally, and was a major investor--the reclusive rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things). That's the sort of mentality behind ES&S, which is counting all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code. A million dollars--to promote views like that!

Sane people have a hard time countering such madness with reasonable, rational political discussion, because there is so much money behind the corporate propaganda machine, but we do have the Internet and Facebook and DU, to try to do a bit our own Peoples' Psyops. I wonder if there is an artist out there who could re-purpose old "Alice in Wonderland" illustrations of the characters at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party table with the faces of...well, you know who. These days it could be animated as well and put on You Tube.

There's a nice project!

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

44. Interesting theory.

I agree that this should be an OP. Start a thread, maybe we will hear some additional interesting explanations on the whole Obama enigma.

[DeSwiss]

46. Bingo! n/t

[Vidar]

47. Far too plausible. Excellent analysis!

[Soylent Brice]

105. replying to you so i can remind myself

to look for your op tomorrow.

This should be a good discussion.

Wish we could rec replies.

[syberlion]

112. What's interesting is I commented on a breaking story last month

About the ACLU asking the Justice Dept to investigate Bush for Waterboarding admissions in his book. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4611500&mesg_id=4611500">ACLU: Investigate Bush for Waterboarding Admissions

There, I was just pointing out Bush Jr was the son of a former CIA director, who better to know what people to call to clean up a big mess. I thought as long as Bush Sr. is alive, no one would dare touch his son, but your analysis is much broader and probably correct.

I just finished the book, 1984 and if the Repugs aren't jockeying to become "The Party" as described in that book, then I must be missing something... but I don't think I am.

Here's my two cents worth: Once things get sooo bad and the black box voting machines keep putting in more and more crazies like Bachmann, heck why not allow one of them to ascend to the presidency? Then a well-spoken, fire-brand shows up, people will fall for them like gang-busters, even though they intend to completely strip away what is left of the democratic process, all in the name of safety and security. We all know that is much more important then bothering to go out in the weather and choose someone that you don't know and could never trust, look at all the loonies in there now! Feh! who needs to vote when you have some level headed leader looking out for our best interests?

They've been working on this for the past 30 years, they are in it for the long haul, they are working the system to destroy the system, period. They don't like that common people have the right to choose, they believe they are born to grace and are the natural leaders, without question. They are looking to dismantle our system and they've got the roof off and are working on the walls. So I agree, we need to get the voting process as far away from the greedy, grubby paws of the corporations. Getting paper ballots back is a start, because the black box machines cannot be trusted. Remember when the corporations filled the people with hatred against good health care? We need to fill up the people with a hatred against those black boxes.

We're not done yet, but it's getting closer and closer. As for the person that said there were not enough DU'rs, I disagree, we've been led to believe there aren't enough of us. We out-number them. There's always been more regular people then privileged people. Why do you think they live on those mountain tops, or behind those locked gated communities? Because they know that if we ever woke up and shook off their fear laden belief system, you know the one I am talking about - if you're good and work hard you too could live on our side of the locked gates - well then they would hold no sway over us ever.

That's the thing, it's all about the power. Oh, the money's nice, but they want the power, period. To have power, they have to have people to laud over and guess what, that's you and me. So, wake up and realize that's their game. We are not powerless, the numbers are on our side, we're scared because we've been told to be scared. I've dealt with my share of bullies and when I started standing up to them, they left me alone. It's time to stand up to these bullies, it's time to no longer be scared.

[kpete]

24. Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe

Source: Mother Jones

Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe

— Zuma/Paul Morse

A WikiLeaks cable shows that when Spain considered a criminal case against ex-Bush officials, the Obama White House and Republicans got really bipartisan.

— By David Corn

Wed Dec. 1, 2010 2:47 PM PST

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

The previous month, a Spanish human rights group called the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners had requested that Spain's National Court indict six former Bush officials for, as the cable describes it, "creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture." The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel. The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation's "universal jurisdiction" law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents. Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria.

Soon after the request was made, the US embassy in Madrid began tracking the matter. On April 1, embassy officials spoke with chief prosecutor Javier Zaragoza, who indicated that he was not pleased to have been handed this case, but he believed that the complaint appeared to be well-documented and he'd have to pursue it. Around that time, the acting deputy chief of the US embassy talked to the chief of staff for Spain's foreign minister and a senior official in the Spanish Ministry of Justice to convey, as the cable says, "that this was a very serious matter for the USG." The two Spaniards "expressed their concern at the case but stressed the independence of the Spanish judiciary."

Two weeks later, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and the embassy's charge d'affaires "raised the issue" with another official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The next day, Zaragoza informed the US embassy that the complaint might not be legally sound. He noted he would ask Cándido Conde-Pumpido, Spain's attorney general, to review whether Spain had jurisdiction.

Read more: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation

---

More here:
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836

[naaman fletcher]

25. Confirms my view...

That this is a one party country. It had two branches that get into sound and fury Spats over gay marriage and such while the banks get bailed out and the politicians commit crimes.

[Mosaic]

30. Kabuki Theater

And as P.T.Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute, in politics as in business. The actors on center stage know they are playing a role, many gullible voters still don't. Now we can wake up.

[obxhead]

26. The first step would be to put the shovel down.

The second step would be to climb out of the hole he's sharing.

[No Elephants]

27. Judd Gregg, the guy Obama wanted in his Cabinet. Sec. of Commerce, was it?

The U.S. has a domestic law, enacted pursuant to a treaty adopted under Reagan, REQUIRING that we punish our torturers. Instead, we don't even let foreign governments prosecute them.


Is it soup yet?


Well, everyone who's been saying Obama is nothing at all like Bush may finally have been vindicated: Would Dummya have cooperated with Democrats to keep a foreign nation from prosecuting Bubba? :shrug:

[Grassy Knoll]

28. Thanks kpete....

Was posted , but I want this posted every hour for everybody at all hours
to see this shit of how weak our party really is.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

29. k/r

[neverforget]

31. Finally! Bipartisanship!!!!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Imagevision]

34. Obama said no to Main St. but yes to Wall street and let BP slide!!!

[Solly Mack]

35. K&R

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

36. kicked

[Celtic Raven]

49. K&R

:argh:

[bvar22]

53. Protecting Torturers and War Criminals...

...IS a WAR CRIME.

[ProudDad]

56. Change...?

Amazing...

Can this pResident do ANYTHING?

[democrank]

59. One thing in public, another thing in the shadows.

Some change that is!

[daa]

62. Wikileaks: Obama Administration Secretly Worked To Prevent Prosecution of War Crimes By The Bush Adm

Source: Jonathan Turley

One of the little reported details from the latest batch of Wikileaks material are cables showing that the Obama Administration worked hard behind the scenes not only to prevent any investigation of torture in the United States but shutdown efforts abroad to enforce the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. This includes threatening the Spanish that, if they did not derail a judicial investigation, it would have serious consequences in bilateral relations. I will be discussing these cables tonight on Countdown.

For two years, President Obama has worked to block the investigation of torture under the Bush Administration — even as both Dick Cheney and George Bush publicly admit to ordering waterboarding of suspects.

David Corn in Mother Jones has an interesting posting today on the issue.

A “confidential” April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department discloses how the Administration discarded any respect for the independence of the judiciary in Spain and pressured the government to derail the prosecution of Bush officials. Human rights groups around the world had called for such enforcement in light of Obama promise that no torturers would be prosecuted and Holder’s blocking of any investigation into war crimes.



Read more: http://jonathanturley.org/2010/12/02/wikileaks-obama-administration-secretly-worked-to-prevent-prosecution-of-war-crimes-by-the-bush-administration/

---

Change we can believe in

[Taverner]

63. Perhaps this is why Obama looked a little off when accepting the Nobel

He knew in his heart of hearts - he was letting Bush and co away with MURDER

[caseymoz]

72. And with that in his heart, he used the prize to sell his Afghani war.

He's not a great man or president-- understatement.

[Dinger]

64. "What The Fuck" Seems To Be The Phrase Of The Day (nt)

[niceypoo]

65. Does covering up war crimes...

...make Obama complicit in those war crimes?

[Dinger]

67. I'm Thinking Yes, But Then What?

?

[caseymoz]

73. Legally speaking, yes.

Given the federal statute on torture and the treaty it's supposed to enforce. Signed by Reagan, BTW.

[BadgerKid]

77. Article 2, section 4.

We just know the 'thugs are going to go there.

[golddigger]

69. Only the winners decide what were war crimes.

[caseymoz]

74. The question is, then, does good always win at the end?

Also, history is re-examined repeatedly in the future, after the winners are dead and their cause and interests are no longer a concern. The question is: how good were they at suppressing and expunging the evidence? The victors now might be arrogant and careless. I think of those words when I look in Dubya's eyes, BTW.

So, the idea that history is written by the victors is not literally true.

[Dinger]

66. Is There Anyone Here Who Would Like To Try And Defend This?

Anyone?

[frylock]

71. we went around and around with this last nite..

and yes, people were defending it. the defense was "would you rather have mccain?"

[Demeter]

79. I'm Not Sure McCain Would Have Stood Still for This

He's not a fan of any Bush or the BFEE.

[Doctor_J]

84. Yes he would have

he has probably the most pliable ethics in DC, which is no small boast.

[caseymoz]

83. They have a point, problem is it isn't a defense of him.

It's a defense of their decision to vote for him. What isn't explained by it is how about all the arguments about how great he was long afterward, when he was suspending habeus corpus, ordering the killing of an American citizen, when he gave away the public option to the pharma companies, when he ramped up the war in Afghanistan, when he wouldn't close Guantanamo, when he adopted an ineffective housing aid program, When he put together the Deficit Reduction Commission, when he gave a small stimulus, while bailing out the banks and the auto companies, and when he froze federal employees salaries? When he basically he has acted like a Republican, and not even a moderate one, someone to the right of Reagan?

People didn't vote for him just because he was better than McCain. None of us did. Some were quicker to be disillusioned about him than others. I'm thinking that about this latest news is going to take a few weeks to really sink in among his remaining supporters. It's going to be a bad election in 2012.

The fact that Obama is the best the Democrats could choose, and would have such hopes dashed about him, says something. It says something about how this country is now selecting leaders, and the class corrupt from which they're selected, and the way that class is educated.

It's a bygone conclusion: this country is going to continue to get worse, and possibly collapse into violent uprising, which will turn the world on its ear.

[RZM]

76. I'd be happy to

I of course have no access to inside information, but here's my take:

I don't think a lot of DUers understand that there is an ironic connection between one of their greatest fears (President Sarah Palin) and one of their greatest hopes (George W. Bush indicted for war crimes). My personal belief is that indicting GWB in a foreign and/or international justice system for war crimes would have earth-shattering political consequences back home -- my belief is that this would damage the Democratic brand to such a degree that it would take many years for it to fully recover.

Think about it. How would people react to George W. Bush being formally accused of war crimes? Reactions would vary, but just about the only group to fully endorse it would be DU-types, who in the end do not comprise a very large slice of the electorate. Most people from the center to the right, even those without a lot of love for GWB, would be extremely hostile to this -- they would perceive it as a slight to American sovereignty and a gross national insult. The right could spin this so easily -- arguing that saying GWB is a war criminal is akin to saying that the military men and women who followed his orders are war criminals too and that it's an insult to the thousands of soldiers who died for Iraqi freedom -- etc. etc.. The news would galvanize and unite the right, just in time for 2012. On the left, like I said, full-throated support for the action would be restricted to a relatively small group on the far end of the spectrum. DU would be united behind it, but not a lot of other Democrats would. The closer you got to the center, the less support for this you would see. It would poll badly I imagine -- I'd be surprised if more than 20 percent of people would say they thought it was a good idea. It would be an absolute loser for elected officials to support it and you would see most Democrats joining with the right to decry it. It would divide the Democrats just as much as it united the Republicans.

Republicans would sense blood in the water and milk this for absolutely everything it was worth -- campaigning on it non-stop and working hard to convince voters that a vote for a Democrat, no matter what they say, is a vote for saying GWB and our military are war criminals -- since Obama 'let it happen'. The center would break hard for the Republicans on this issue alone, opening up a real possibility for a turnover in the White House and all but guaranteeing large Republican gains in Congress.

I think this is the main reason that this Democratic administration wants nothing at all to do with this. Keen political minds advise the Democrats and they know full well this is a losing proposition for them.

[EFerrari]

81. How far down the toilet is this country

that a bragging torturer can't be prosecuted.

[Demeter]

82. Abolition of Slavery Wasn't Popular, Either

but it had to be done.

[Dinger]

86. Exactly (nt)

[RZM]

90. I think it's tough to equate the two

The circumstances and issues were very different. Emancipation was a radical transformation in many ways. It directly altered the lives of millions, wiped out billions in assets, and required a bloody war and changes to the Constitution to be finalized. Prosecuting GWB will not alter anyone's life, nor will it affect the economy much. It won't require a war or changes to the constitution either. A lot of people had a lot riding on emancipation. Few have anything riding on Bush's legal status. It's essentially a symbolic act. I'm not saying the issues of torture, law, and war crimes aren't important, but I don't see how this has much in common at all with emancipation.

[Demeter]

110. It's EXACTLY as Transformational

Bush is the loose thread on the knitted sweater...tug on it, and the whole fabric of the Overlord shirt unravels, and crime and criminal after crime and criminal is unprotected and unhidden....

And a lot of loot can be repatriated to the rightful owners.

[Hissyspit]

88. They do not know that at all.

That's the similar argument inveighed against impeaching Nixon.

[RZM]

91. From what I know

The votes were there for impeaching Nixon. He knew it and that's why he resigned. Are you prepared to argue that the votes are there to put GWB on trial for war crimes? Not a single Republican in Congress would support it and I'll bet only a small handful of Democrats would.

[Hissyspit]

99. This is not about impeaching Bush. It's about Spain's investigation.

An investigation that they could have allowed to proceed and then respond to.

I was saying the REASONING you gave was similar, not the circumstances.

[RZM]

101. But my reasoning rests upon the fact that those pushing for this are outside the US

That would be the rub and the main reason for such strong opposition to it. The Nixon affair was entirely domestic. Big difference. I see your point, but my response still stands. There political will to impeach Nixon. There's little to none here to try GWB for anything, either here or in Europe.

[caseymoz]

89. I'm certain Obama & Co. thought they were being politically clever.

No, they weren't. Look at the election.

But the problem is, if what you say is true, and I do think it is, this country is irretrievable, because it's going to fall into violence anyway. You might as well just wait for the hardship, persecution and war. It's not going to solve itself now without that. The few rich will continue to get fewer richer, and the poor are going to grow and get poorer, until the poor have had it. The political process trying to support this is going to crack and break. The state-guided media and the government's freelance toadies will continue to sing out propaganda and distractions, but that can only work if people can afford satellite, cable and entertainment and have homes in which to run them. The rich are too greedy to give those for free.

So, now the Democrats have lost the 2010 election and they are poised to lose the 2012 one. What more would they have lost? Maybe the Senate, which is going to be filibustered anyway. Maybe a few more states?

Meanwhile, it would have been risky, but Obama might have got through the crisis, and restored the rule of law to the government and the ruling class, and what came out at the trial might have discredited Bush and the whole right.

In other words, only balls could have restored this country and stopped what is now inevitable. Obama has discredited himself on the the left along with the whole Democratic leadership, while the Right isn't giving anything to him.

I can't blame him too much, because it was Bush who pushed us this far, but Obama really shows he has no idea, and that he is willing to use government power to stop a judicial proceeding in another country tells me he has a Republican idea of what government power should be.

[RZM]

93. I think he has a politician's idea of what government power should be

Which is him in it. Putting Bush on trial could jeopardize that. The opinion is no doubt shared by most other Democrats in Congress. What you might also be overlooking is the fact that most Democrats probably don't think Bush is a war criminal anyway. It's not just the politics of the thing, but most probably don't believe the charges would be warranted in any case. I think Jon Stewart probably summed up the prevailing mood among the American public and political class when he said that to him, 'war criminal' means 'Hitler and Pol Pot.'

[caseymoz]

103. If that's the case, and I think it is, the country's doomed.

If they are that calloused, and enough people are, the government is just a few years away from turning that brutality on its own people, and on a regular basis. Especially if the economy doesn't improve. And it will be done by the rich to keep themselves growing richer.

[ProudDad]

113. republicans are in the minority in this country

I believe that if bush/cheney had been indicted and convicted and the EVIDENCE of their crimes publicized...

A large majority of the country would throw the republicans out on their ears...

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

Of course in the long run it wouldn't change much since the Dems are creatures of the corporate state too.

[RZM]

117. I guess there's no real way to know that

Just as there's no way to know if what I predicted in my post would ever come to pass. A lot of stuff about the Bush administration is known - it's just that a lot of people don't really care a whole lot or are willing to forgive. There's also the large segment of the population that isn't interested in politics at at all and thus not all that concerned either way, particularly regarding accusations against an administration that is already part of history.

Republicans are a minority, but so are Democrats as well. Both brand names are hurting right now and I don't see that trend reversing anytime soon.

[Freddie Stubbs]

92. Sure. You protect your own

Someday some foreign judge or prosecutor may take a dim view on something that the Obama Administration did. But whoever is President then will do their best to block such actions, mindful that they too will eventually be a former President.

[No Elephants]

120. Nothing says anyone is going to protect Obamaco because Obama protected Bushco,

Remind me: How many times did a foreign nation attempt to try members of a U.S. administration?

[Mnemosyne]

68. Accessories after the fact. Beyond the pale. War criminals continue to walk free. n/t

[cascadiance]

70. That's why Don Siegelman's appeal pleas are still ignored while corrupt Ted Stevens was released...

to get "small plane crashed"...

[Dr.Phool]

75. Now, the poor guy is gonna have his hands full getting Cheney off the hook.

Quick! Send Hillary to Nigeria!

[Demeter]

78. Worst Kept Secret in the World

Does one need to have a multiple personality order to serve in DC?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

80. He is now officially complicit.

Shame on bim.

And shame on us for standing for it.

[lunatica]

85. I fucking hate this!

It makes me literally sick to my stomach. It's one thing to 'not go there' but altogether another thing to actively block and threaten and work hard to suppress all legal action in the world.

Fuck!

[Frisbee]

87. I guess now we know why it was "off the table".

:grr:

[FLPanhandle]

94. I'm shocked that anyone here is shocked by this.

Come on! There is no f**king way a president is going to ever allow a foreign court to prosecute a former president. No way, no how, never.

The ONLY way a former President or VP will ever face prosecution is by a U.S. jury. That'll never happen either. The sitting president would pardon the former president to make sure that he would never face a court after getting out of office either.

[katty]

102. agree-no way would any prez let this happen-not shocking

[ProudDad]

114. That's why bush/cheney don't DARE leave the country (n/t)

[No Elephants]

122. I doubt they would anyway. Before becoming Pres, Incurious George never left the U.S.,

not even to cross the border between Texas and Mexico.

[No Elephants]

124. Your saying "there's no fucking way" proves something to anyone?

[Hubert Flottz]

95. Because congress was as guilty as Bush for the most part.

Everywhere we look the mark of the Bush is upon us!

[northernlights]

96. so now Obama is officially a war criminal -- can they take that Nobel back?

Every time I think I cannot be more disgusted with this administration, they find a new way to sink my opinion to new lows.

Here I thought is was bad that he wasn't pursuing them. Instead, blocking the Geneva Conventions on torture and threatening allies over it?

I now officially hate Obama.

I thought he was selfish, narcissistic and egotistical. It's worse than I ever could have imagined.

I think I'm done voting. I want to puke. I truly want to puke.

[rainbow4321]

100. Looks like Spain had a backup plan to derail any Gitmo torture investigation

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09MADRID440.html


Summary: Spanish National Court (Audiencia Nacional) investigating judge Baltasar Garzon has announced he will pursue an investigation into allegations the U.S. tortured terrorism detainees at Guantanamo. He has yet to name any targets of his investigation. This comes days after he was forced to give up a related complaint filed by an NGO against six Bush Administration officials (ref a). At the urging of Spanish prosecutors, the earlier case was reassigned to another National Court judge who now appears to be trying shelve the case. The Chief Prosecutor for the National Court tells us he will also fight Garzons latest move. Nevertheless, we suspect Garzon will wring all the publicity he can from the case unless and until he is forced to give it up



(SBU) LEGATT and Embassy FSN Legal Advisor met May 4 with National Court Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza (protect) to discuss Garzons latest move. Zaragoza said he had challenged Garzon directly and personally on this latest case, asking if he was trying to drum up more speaking fees. Garzon replied he was doing it for the record only and would let it die. Zaragoza opined that Garzon, having gotten his headline, would soon drop the matter. In case he does not, Zaragoza has a strategy to force his hand. Zaragozas strategy hinges on the older case in which Garzon investigated terrorism complaints against some Guantanamo detainees. In connection with those earlier investigations, Garzon ordered the Spanish police to visit Guantanamo and collect evidence against the suspected terrorists. Zaragoza reasons that he can use this fact to embarrass Garzon into dropping this latest case by suggesting Garzon in some sense condoned the U.S. approach to detainee issues circa 2004. Garzon took no action in 2004 when the suspects returned to Spain and reported to him their alleged mistreatment. Zaragoza said that if Garzon could not be shamed into dropping the case, then he would formally recommend Garzon do so and appeal if Garzon ignored him.

[maritzasolito]

107. Vote Repuke so that you Are-ALL-happy-All the time while

getting F'ucked!
Vote for the rich, vote against Gay, vote to go back to 17th century, and so on.

$h!T, I'll help you out since I am Hispanic and my husband is a 'fracking mexican' and he (my husband) is a fracking brown-USMC-Idiot-Vietnam-Vet that again is brown and I am sure that he will vote Repuke when I tell him to do so. AND all just to keep you all happy!!!!!!!!!!

President Obama is not good BUT who is creating jobs? Have you seen the charts contrasting his job creation compared to that of Bush?

I am all to be f'ucked so repuke will be for me untill I die!

S&M's anyone?

[DemReadingDU]

118. no, dont' vote Repuke

Basically people did that this term, and have put back into office the politicians who bailed out the banks in 2008 and vote against extending unemployment.

Spouse and I are working at our local village to get the mayor and crony police chief to resign. It's been over a year and half, wheels of justice turn so slowly. But we have to start somewhere.

[No Elephants]

121. I have a better idea. Vote for a liberal Democrat.