The day that Barack Obama lied to me

[kpete]

The day that Barack Obama lied to me
Will Bunch


Spain is home to the running of the bulls, of course, but in 2009 it was also home to the running of the bull----, courtesy of our president, Barack Obama. And this time, it's personal. Presidents lie all the time, unfortunately, but in this case candidate Barack Obama lied to my face in April 2008, when he came to 400 North Broad Street here in Philadelphia and I had a chance to ask him directly how he would handle allegations of torture and related crimes by the Bush administration.

Here's part of how he responded:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

On Jan. 20, 2009, Obama became the 44th president of the United States, and in the 22 months since then there's no reason to believe there's what he promised -- any serious Justice Department review of torture or any other likely war crimes that were ordered up and carried out during Bush's presidency. So what he said up on the 12th floor of the building where I now sit was, in essence, a lie. But tonight, thanks to some on-the-ball reporting from David Corn at Mother Jones, we learn that it's even worse than that, that the Obama administration actively protected Bush's minions from any accountability, anywhere in the world:

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.

................................

You know, there's been all this talk recently -- including on this blog -- about "American exceptionalism." Does anyone remember what Obama said when he was asked about this back in 2009:

I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

Pretty words -- but meaningless if working in the White House means you're above "our body of law." The breakdown of justice in this county is far from exceptional. In fact, it's contemptible. And the lie that Barack Obama told in this building in Philadelphia is a big part of that.

more:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/At_least_not_quite_as_many_people_died_when_Obama_lied.html

[Ozymanithrax]

1. He gave himself an out by saying "What I would want..."

Because he did not say the word "will" he did no promise to do anything. Maybe he wanted to, but didn't for Imperial reasons, or as Cardinal Richeleau said "raison d'État."

I'm not excusing him, just pointing out that want and will are entirly different words, and being a lawyer he knows that. By using want he promised nothing and did not lie under the strict definition.

[griffi94]

3. so he didn't really lie

he just deceived by being misleading.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. No he allowed people to deceive themsleves.

There was a lot of that going around at the time. People hear what they want to hear.

I did not support him in the primary, only in the general election. I haven't been surprised by him.

[griffi94]

11. depends on what the meaning of is...is

[BetsysGhost]

33. the meaning of is

is, Barack Obama took an Oath. A Sacred Oath he called it and he took it twice making sure

his intention.

He has failed to protect the Constitution seeking to protect the former administration from War Crime charges.

[2 Much Tribulation]

90. If a reasonable person would believe a certain thing that's deceptive, that is Deception as a matter

of law, regardless of what's in the heart or mind of the person who speaks. This is the standard applied in consumer protection fraud, securities fraud, etc., where they dispense with the "pure heart" defense entirely and focus on what a reasonable person would take it to mean, and if it's more likely than not that they would take it falsely, the liability is on the BUSINESS and most definitely not on the consumer. By analogy, here the "consumer" is in the position of Voter.

[BetsysGhost]

102. got too crowded

near the ending of the thread?

Your response to my post has nothing to do with what I said, near as I can tell.

[pezDispenser]

59. +1

[JackRiddler]

4. What's the definition of is again?

[Ozymanithrax]

8. You remember the famous slick willie.

I like Clinton, but he had a mouth on him slicker than vaseline.

To often we take general imperssions from speaches. What we should do is listen to the words and see if they really mean what we think was said.

[kctim]

26. I never heard that

always figured she just used lipstick.

[sabrina 1]

28. Well, that would be fine, except that it wasn't a case of 'he wanted

to, but he couldn't.' If it was a case of 'couldn't' he would at least have stayed out of the business of other nations who WERE prosecuting War Criminals.

But that is not what happened, we now know from the Wikileaks documents, that he went in exactly the opposite direction and used his power to put pressure on the Spanish Court which was in the process of prosecuting Bush's torturers, NOT to do so. Not only that, but he joined with Republicans in this effort.

So there's simply no room now to try to give him some slack. He made a decision to protect Bush's torturers together with Republicans.

What he told us while he was actively involved in the torture issue, was that he believed we should 'just move forward'. We 'don't have time to look back'. That was bad enough, but now we know it was much worse than that. While we thought he was 'moving forward', he was instead VERY INVOLVED in the War Crimes issue, he DID have time for it after all. But he was on the side of the torturers!

I have never been so disgusted with a Democrat in my life. Shame on him, to use those pretty words about our values and our Constitution while he aided and abetted war criminals, in violation of his OWN oath of office. He is not officially complicit in Bush's war crimes.

[struggle4progress]

56. ""I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a

partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."

Would Obama prosecute the Bush administration for torture?
Obama's brain trust wants to form a commission on torture and call Bush officials as witnesses, but put off prosecutions -- if any -- till a second term.
By Mark Benjamin
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/04/obama

[elocs]

72. I wonder how that will work out since I don't think he will get a second term

unless the Republicans nominate Palin.

[ooglymoogly]

62. So making the folks believe something by obfuscation by manipulation of the english language

Is a okay. It is fraud. A lie by any other name; a lie in a kabuki mask, still smells like shit.

The lie is; he did NOT, NOT, NOT, "want" nor intend to follow the laws of our land and the constitution, demanding these investigations and prosecutions, and has proved it over and over again.

We have been had. Plain and simple.

Six more years and there will be nothing left for him to give away in grand "bi-partisan" flim flam.

[Moonbat2]

71. six????

yuk-yuk-yuk. Sure.....six years........OMG did you say six MORE YEARS.And you really believe that???:eyes:

[JTFrog]

76. Yes. Get used to it. Obama will be President for six more years.

No matter how batshit crazy DU goes trying to stop that from happening.

[pengillian101]

69. Exactly.

"Because he did not say the word "will" he did no promise to do anything."

And he has not.

[olegramps]

79. The real key is that he fears the reaction of the Republicans. He runs scared.

[RufusTFirefly]

85. Right. And the Bush Admin never actually said Saddam was behind 9/11

Kind of like that. Nice.

[davidwparker]

89. I know its difficult to tell Obama is head of the executive

branch and party, so this is probably why weasel words are needed.

But, as head of the executive, he sets the agenda.

At least you are not excusing him.

[ProSense]

2. This is not a lie

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

This has nothing to do with Spain.

The President also said "I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now." So unless people know exactly what the decisions were based upon and they can't claim this is a lie.

[JackRiddler]

5. In other words, executive privilege over democracy.

Or if you prefer: There are always reasons and it isn't the business of we serfs to know them.

[ProSense]

6. No, it's just not a lie. n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[TBF]

25. +1000. every day. nt

[frylock]

36. fucking bravo!

:applause:

[donco6]

37. "Jesus-following" only applies to beating up gay folks.

The rest is pretty much take-it-or-leave-it stuff.

[ProSense]

52. Good grief

what the President did that day, playing with words and spinning, that stuff is explicitly forbidden by Jesus, the head honcho of the faith that the President claims to follow so strictly that he opposes the rights of other Americans because of that faith. "Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no, for anything more comes from evil." That is what "I'm a Christian" Christ had to say about splitting hairs and playing tricks to lie 'without lying'.
The entire tactic you are using should be rejected by anyone who also stands by the faith based anti-equality President, because your Jesus teacher said not a word aginst gay people, but he said liars, and those who edit the truth or otherwise spin, are from evil. Evil, he said.
So you were explaining that this avoidance of the truth was not exactly a lie, for some technical reason that takes links and paragraphs to explain? I'll let you continue to explain why 'yes' did not really mean 'yes'.

Did I enter a RW Christian site?

[tomp]

73. no silly, you're on the obama fan club site. you're in the right place. nt

[JTFrog]

77. So what are you doing here? n/t

[uponit7771]

70. ...and what you were doing was NOT listening something else forbidden by plain logic.

[Subdivisions]

34. -

[Javaman]

57. a dash? nt

[emilyg]

39. -100

[dflprincess]

47. But it is weasel words

and not far removed from a lie.

[lark]

95. It may not be a lie - but is it 100% a deception

People use weasle words to make their audience think they are saying one thing, but they actually aren't. It's not lying, but it certainly is very deceptive and is that way by intent. So Obama may not be a liar, but he's definitely a fraud. Nothing he says means anything because he will totally bend over and grab his ankles even before the Repugs speak, out of fear of what they will say. He has no spine and does not seem to care. I don't know that I've ever been so disappointed in anyone.

[NightWatcher]

10. "if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated". How do you know unless you inv?

Allow the World Court (or Spain or whomever) to investigate and a trial to be held to determine if there was a crime and who is guilty.

[tomp]

74. actually, bush has confessed to illegal wiretapping and torture on TV.

that's a pretty good indication that crimes have been committed.

[sabrina 1]

32. Stop trying to defend him. He took an active part together with

Republicans to protect Bush's torturers from prosecution in Spain. While he was doing that, apparently devoting time he claimed he did not have to deal with war crimes, he was telling the American people that he 'wanted to move forward'.

Only the most naive person in the world would keep the blinders on in view of the evidence now available.

Did he have time to devote to war crimes? He said 'no, we have more important things to do'. That was a lie. He found the time to join with Republicans to deal with that very issue after all. He found the time to protect torturers from prosecution. Gonzales and his fellow war criminals thank him. No wonder Gonzales re-emerged from hiding after Obama was elected. He knew he was home free and had nothing to fear anymore from Democrats.

[Lorien]

35. Is there anything Obama could EVER do that you would not defend?

Anything?

[JackRiddler]

38. Of course: Move to the left.

It would be terribly unpragmatic and polarizing to end the seventeen-level virtual chess game that only appears to implement what the Republicans want and lose elections miserably. Just wait until twenty-twelve, fourteen or twenty-one. You'll see!

[ProSense]

55. Yes,

cut Social Security.

[Javaman]

58. but you are okay with him extending the war and still operating black sites.

right.

moving along.

[druidity33]

78. We'll hold you to that. nt.

[lark]

96. So, you aren't in favor of his hand picked cat food committee?

Because they certainly put cutting social security on the table and are pushing hard for it. In fact, Obama has praised their results, so looks like this is what he wants. Is this enough to make you put away your rose colored glasses?

[rhett o rick]

43. What is your point? That rhetoric is not a lie? What is important is whether the Pres is protecting

war criminals. Do you agree that there should be an investigation?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[nofurylike]

67. you know it, and i know it. you always try, ProSense. i admire

that.
thank you.

peace and solidarity

[olegramps]

80. An apologist who is blind to the rruth.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Just a day?

[Bluebear]

16. Must have been one with a y in it.

[rug]

12. Five months later Bush summoned McCain and Obama to the Oval Office.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/72307-1.html?cqp=1

The vampire bit.

[ORDagnabbit]

13. meet the new boss...same as the old boss..just with prettier language

[LawnLover]

14. There's a big difference between

instinctively KNOWING a crime has been committed and being able to PROVE it.

That said, you have to understand the reality of governing. If you go after your predecessor without solid evidence against them, you are opening yourself up to future prosecution. As much as we might hope for a utopia, politics is dirty business and dirty things are done by anyone who takes that office. And if you think any President or Presidential candidate will ever tell you the truth about what goes on behind the scenes, you are woefully naive.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Can you translate that into Spanish and forward it to Spain?

Seems like you should tell them they are woefully naive to care for justice.

[LawnLover]

20. This has nothing to do with caring for justice

and everything to do with understanding reality. And I guarantee the politicians in Spain are just as corrupt as politicians anywhere else in the world.

Do you seriously doubt that?

I know you don't like to hear this bad news and feel the need to paint me as someone who doesn't give a shit, but the truth is, I'm not wrong -- despite the fact that I care.

[liberation]

49. what have logic and intellectual honesty done to deserve such raping?

Sweet zombie Jesus!

Let me follow your logic: since there have been corrupt politicians in the USA, now any foreign national prosecuted by the US can claim immunity. Wow, just wow.

For some of you it is a case of Obama right or wrong even if you have to dive into the deepest reaches of fallacy.

[Doctor_J]

18. But now we know that crimes were committed

That means to me that if the DoJ would have investigated, they would have found mounds of evidence, and Bush & Cheney would be roasting away in Hell by now. So by your analysis, he DID lie.

[LawnLover]

21. I didn't say he didn't lie. nt.

[Angry Dragon]

19. Well now he has the man himself going around the country

telling everyone who will listen that he tortured people and he would do it again.
Nothing stopping him from investigating now

[LawnLover]

22. Except political reality. nt.

[Angry Dragon]

23. And that is the problem

when political reality differs from real reality you get the mess the country is in today.
Until laws apply the same to everyone you will have a country sliding into the abyss.

[jtuck004]

29. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President

So it is the President's duty to direct the AG to investigate any crime in this country. And if the Pres doesn't direct the investigation to be done, well, it falls back to the people and what they think about that decision, eh?

Angry, you are absolutely correct. As the head of all the departments, the Pres says "investigate because I have an interest". The AG's job is to do exactly that, although they have the option of resigning and the Pres appoints someone who has the backbone to do the job. Whether a prosectution results is a secondary consideration.

As far as I am concerned, if we have to parse every word someone says to decide whether they are giving themselves "outs" on their future behavior, and they support people who don't pursue a goal of doing what is best for the most vulnerable of those they represent they have proven themselves unworthy. In the next election someone can throw all the fear-mongering crap they want, but if I feel like someone in office has lied, or acted to protect people who are financially destroying this country, they are very likely to lose my support. Be straight, or be gone.

"The Attorney General is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by the President at any time; the Attorney General is also subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."<1> Only in 1870 was the Department of Justice established to support the Attorney General in the discharge of his responsibilities".

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General

We could go to the U.S. codes and historical documents to substantiate all this, but that would be more like a procedural trick to keep anything from getting done...

[LawnLover]

30. This country is in the same mess it's always been in

Nothing is different today than it was 100 years ago.

I agree that it's a shame, and it's sad, but reality is reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it, but to start a thread bemoaning that Obama didn't tell the truth about something is like expressing surprise that baseball players take steroids.

Until we stop electing corrupt men and women to represent us, nothing will change.

[displacedvermoter]

27. Political reality is that the investigations

should have begun the day after Obama took office, with full blown coverage in the media in a series of Watergate-type blockbusters
that would have told everyone -- including the most apathetic citizens -- of the rampant corruption and evil that marked the Bush era.

When people learned of the open disregard for the constitution, the torture, the pallets of cash that vanished from Baghdad, and the overall incompetence, profiteering, and evil that took place, it would have truly been possible to put a stake in the heart of the GOP for a generation to come. But the first time Obama let it be known that he was looking forward, not backwards, and ignoring perhaps the darkest time in US history, then the political "realities" became apparent. Obama was just another politician, although a dreamy and smooth talking one.

Pitiful to give the people who are supposedly looking out for us such an easy pass.

[quakerboy]

101. Its aweful hard to prove

anything if you refuse to investigate it.

At the same time, I say this to your "reality of governing". All presidents and other elected officials should have the specter of prosecution hanging over their heads. It might just help give them some motivation to do the right thing rather than whatever is expedient at the moment.

[Poboy]

31. Meanwhile Holder sits around with his thumb up his ass.

[slipslidingaway]

40. Some background on what inspired the original 2008 question ...

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

"...The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:


What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it..."

[slipslidingaway]

60. David Swanson's 2008 article ... bad policies or genuine crimes and what was known ...

at the time.

http://davidswanson.org/node%252F1269

Indictment and Trial of Bush and Cheney

"Here's his answer, in its entirety:

'What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.'"

Obama did not say he prefers prosecution to impeachment for political reasons. He said he's opposed to both because he doesn't know of any crimes having been committed, and he hasn't seen any exceptional circumstances, but that he's open to prosecution should he discover that crimes have been committed...

I want to focus on what Obama already knows, because we all know it, because it's public knowledge.

The current president has openly confessed to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and with it the Fourth Amendment...

It is illegal for the president to misappropriate public funds or to violate the War Powers Resolution, both of which he did by secretly taking money from Afghanistan to begin the work of invading Iraq and to launch bombing raids before receiving congressional authorization. This is not disputed, and there is no question that Obama knows about it.

Federal laws and international treaties prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, as well as secret detentions, denial of due process, and rendition to other nations for purposes of torturing...

It's a violation of the UN Charter and therefore of Article VI of the US Constitution to launch a war of aggression against Iraq or to threaten one against Iran. Those threats are on videotape.

And it is a violation of international and US law to target civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, to use antipersonnel weapons including cluster bombs in densely settled urban areas, to use white phosphorous as a weapon, to use depleted uranium weapons, and to employ a new version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs. Under the command of George W. Bush, the U.S. military has engaged in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian populations, including by blocking roads, cutting electricity and water, destroying fuel stations, planting bombs in farm fields, demolishing houses, and plowing down orchards. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids collective punishment and the targeting of civilians. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes that Convention the law of the land.

At some point we have to simply choose to stop listing the crimes. For many of these crimes no investigation is needed or even possible or conceivable. The President says he violated FISA. What better evidence is imaginable? An impeachment or a prosecution could take a day. What we need is not time and resources but the will and the pressure to make it happen..."

[Vincardog]

97. What we need is not time and resources but the will and the pressure to make it happen..." Exactly

WE have the will where are they matched in this executive?

[slipslidingaway]

100. We need to look forward :( Swanson was right when he picked up on the bad policies...

vs. criminal acts statement from Obama, plenty was known at the time.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[BrklynLiberal]

42. It is disappointing to find out that President Obama is no different that any other politician....

x(


There was such hope..such enthusiasm..such optimism....now....such disappointment...such disillusionment...such sadness

[undeterred]

46. Is there anyone who is immune to becoming a politician?

I don't think we knew enough about Obama to make a good estimate. We could project onto him whatever we wanted. And people did, and now just about everyone is disappointed. But that is so often true.. once a person takes office, they show their true colors. The only person I've ever felt differently about is Feingold. He's made of something different. He's not as smooth or as charismatic as Obama the candidate. But he's a real leader who truly has a passion for the constitution. He's got integrity. He's the real deal.

Its still a shock to me that Obama, the University of Chicago Constitutional Law professor, has such a questionable relationship to the Constitution.

[BrklynLiberal]

81. Your last sentence is a very, very telling statement....and makes one really wonder.

[undeterred]

86. I can easily believe that a lot of elected officials on the right

have a very distorted view of the US Constitution or have only read selections of it which fit their arguments... kind of like how fundies read the Bible. But Barack Obama knows the Constitution, so in that way it makes him more culpable if he subverts it.

[russspeakeasy]

61. Brklynliberal as usual, in just a few words, nails it.

we expected to be kicked in the crotch and stabbed in the back
(and front) by Bush, but I for one did not expect to become so
irrelevant so quickly by our current leader...

And Brklynliberal...sorry about Charlie, but in this
atmosphere he got off without being lynched and thats a good
thing...

[BrklynLiberal]

82. Thanks russ. You're 100% right about Charlie. It was not good, but not as bad as it could have

been. Truth be told, he is no worse than most politicians...and may even be better than a lot of them, in spite of his "indiscretions". He wasn't caught with diapers and a hooker, paying off his lovers husband, or with a wide stance in an airport bathroom..and he sure as hell is no Tom DeLay, trying to undermine the entire electoral system!!

[placton]

44. every day, every way, he lies to you and me n/t

[placton]

45. every day, every way, he lies to you and me n/t

[mahina]

50. Goodbye.

[UrbScotty]

48. Thankfully, 81% of liberal Democrats still support our President

even though you wouldn't know it from DU.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

[nofurylike]

68. yes, thankfully. thanks for saying it, UrbScotty! nt

[DeSwiss]

51. K&R

You'd think that they'd at least take this down from the barackobama.com website: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/04/obama_torture_and_secrecy_betr.php">Obama: Torture and secrecy betray core American values

[tomm2thumbs]

53. The 4th branch of govt still functioning, although mostly in other countries on our behalf

[BrklynLiberal]

83. Our media is virtually a wholley owned subsidiary of the corporate goons

who also own most of the repukes..and too many of the Dems.

[Swamp Rat]

91. i.e. ARMY personnel 'working' as CNN interns.

[BrklynLiberal]

99. The Military/Industrial/Corporate Complex...as Ike originally wrote it...

http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

<snip>

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

<snip>

[leveymg]

54. This country has never prosecuted a seated or former President. It's a Limited Liability Corp.

That's the status quo, and woe to the incumbent who attempts to change that rule, for the Establishment will utterly destroy him.

Even after US v Nixon and Watergate, it's still abundantly clear that protecting the Institution of the Presidency is more important than any other law or principle of justice in the United States of America.

So sayeth, they, who count. It's on the coin of the realm. It's all over Washington. Who do you think invented this business model?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_79JhZ0Mjrzo/SjRyelb3JxI/AAAAAAAAA5M/z45PDoZzlZE/s320/Abraham+Lincoln+Statue.jpg

[westerebus]

65. When in Rome.

Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

[MilesColtrane]

94. More

Doorway in the Oval Office



At the base of the Statue of Freedom atop the Capitol dome

[Bluesbreaker]

63. He didn't lie? Read this

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

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

[BrklynLiberal]

84. Rachel did a piece on this last night. It was like a slap in the face.

I just sat there with my mouth dropped open...not wanting to believe what I was hearing. Truth does show us things we would rather not see.

[johnaries]

66. You "emphasized" the wrong part.

In your quote, Obama said:

You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

If you know anything about management or leadership, you know that the most important part of it is prioritization.

Obama didn't "lie" to you, he was perfectly honest.

There are many things that "need to be fixed". The most important one was the rejection of the "theory of the Unitary Executive" that Bush used. Obama rejected it and returned to the Rule of Law and attempted to institute Real Change through Congress, as the Constitution requires.

It amazes me that so many people who complained about Bush over-extending his powers expect Obama to do the same.

Keep on track - we have to fix the problems first, THEN we can point fingers.

If you merely want revenge - even in the guise of "accountability" - you're not addressing the problem. Merely assigning blame is what 3rd world countries do to enable dictatorships.

Fix the problem.

That's what Obama is trying to do.

[tomp]

75. that's either disingenuous, stupid, or complicit.

as if the president/the government can't handle multiple issues simultaneously.

and as if some natural or manmade law or some unimpeachable logic puts economy over murder or trampling of rights or malfeasance of government.

even if one does put economy first, there is always second, third, fourth, etc. active obstruction of prosecution of the crimes seemed to come pretty high up on his list of priorities.

and i don't see the justice dept. too involved in prosecuting wall street either, or with any other screaming priorities.

no, you are just defending bullshit.

[WinkyDink]

87. Well, he was right: the operative phrase was "SHOULD BE." He didn't say "WOULD be."

[alturn]

88. Focus on People Power, not Obama

We must make our voice heard louder. Obama is reflecting to us what happens when you give your power to someone else. You end up with nothing.

"We have always had “people power” — there’s nothing new in it. Share International presents the idea as if it were new and revolutionary. Why?
A. Historically, apart from great revolutionary movements like the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, the ‘voice of the people’, as presented by Share International today, has been very muted indeed. Throughout history, ‘the people’ have watched, and often suffered, the succession of invasions, pillages and cruelties meted out by conquering individuals with their armies of conquest.
Today, a new phenomenon has appeared. The people everywhere have sensed their collective power and are demanding a free and just world as theirs by right of being members of the one humanity. This, I submit, is altogether new, and will manifest as a world public opinion with a voice so powerful and united that no government can stand against it. As one of the Masters has put it: “The voice of the people is the voice of wisdom.""
- March 2005 Share International magazine

[Radical Activist]

92. How ignorant. The Justice Department torture investigation is ongoing.

Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do, but Will Burns is too uninformed to realize it. It's odd that we ignore it in the netroots. We should be focusing attention on it.

[MJJP21]

93. I really think

that someone or some organization has gotten to Obama and pretty much bought him off so to speak with threats etc.(I doubt money) Perhaps someone read him the riot act in no uncertain terms which caused him to do a complete about face. I read Obamas books. The man I voted for is not the man in the White House.

[LittleGirl]

98. I must be lost

this is the DEMOCRATIC underground?

and they say only republicans eat their own. sheesh.