If you believe Obama is protecting torturers, then you're advocating his impeachment.

[True Blue Door]

If you believe that and aren't advocating his impeachment, then you are protecting torturers by your own (tortured) logic.

So, when do you folks plan on meeting with the Tea Party to plan your impeachment strategy?

You've already gone halfway there by distracting the discussion away from torture and its implications in favor of spamming one-liner smears on Barack Obama, so why not go the whole way round? Straight up join the torturers in their Teahad against the President.

Get as far away as possible from bringing the torturers to justice - disrupt and distract every possible discussion that might lead to greater unity and cooperation in pursuing them, and instead do their bidding.

I'm sure there have been tons of instances where the Justice Department under prior administrations has prosecuted CIA agents and Pentagon commanders for crimes committed by top-level policy...I just can't find any them anywhere because that darn Obama must have censored the history.

But trust your gut rather than, you know, the facts. Facts are for libruls.

[YoungDemCA]

1. K&R .

[grasswire]

2. has Joe Biden made any statements about torture? nt

[roguevalley]

55. I believe that the leader of this country has a moral obligation

to explore the idea that the bushies committed a war crime, then act. Anything less is bullshit. This happened with the Nazis and Japanese during WWII. They were hanged for it. Our fucking government is doing nothing and last time I looked, Mr. Obama was the president. If he does nothing, what else is there to say?

[JI7]

3. but they wouldn't be able to use DU if they did that , and that's even MORE important

[SomethingFishy]

4. ROFLMAO..

[Reter]

5. Well, if indeed he is protecting them (not saying he is), perhaps he deserves impeachment

n/t

[neverforget]

6. Lol!

[LawDeeDah]

7. I like how you write, I think you went to school instead of that internet course Swearinger 101.

[seveneyes]

8. The flowchart of irrationality

Consists only of branches into the unknown. Logic does not come into play until reality strikes.

[bluesbassman]

9. Nice jump Fonz!

[mmonk]

10. Quit acting like it is a good or decent or ok thing

and we're allies with Republicans if we find evil repugnant. Have a nice day.

[okaawhatever]

11. K & R nt

[Rex]

12. That is some dam fine pretzel logic you just came up with!

Bonus points for using a RWing dog whistle at the end! That is about the best example of projection that I've ever seen!

Bravo! You've outdone all your peers hands down!

[neverforget]

13. pretzels remind me of someone

but I think he did it better

[Autumn]

43. You know what? I knew if I looked through this thread

I would see you and I knew what you would say. It was so obvious.

[Rex]

54. Pretzels can be dangerous around coffee tables.

Paging Capitan Obvious.

[stevil]

14. K & R

[merrily]

29. Member since 2007. Under 500 posts. Yet, agreeing with this OP motivated one of your rare posts.

Always interesting to see what motivates DU's many "long time lurkers" to post.

[zappaman]

33. Good catch!

[merrily]

35. Thanks. It's true. It does always interest me when I see a post like that.

[stevil]

40. Is it true?

Perhaps you would like to run me out of town? I'm a long time lurker who loves this site and am free to post as I wish.

[merrily]

44. Yep. It's true and yes, lots of "long time lurkers." We're all free to post as we wish.

No one stopped you from posting what you wanted or forced you to post anything you didn't want to post. No reason to play victim.

[stevil]

46. No one made you single me out from others who kicked or recommended....

But you did and implied I'm a troll, all because you don't respect my opinion. I'm not your victim.

[merrily]

47. Nope, no one made me, but I am not complaining that anyone did, either.

I said and meant that I find it interesting what motivates infrequent posters to post. For you, it agreeing with a bunch of rationalizations about torture was the motivation for one of your rare posts. Why should I not notice that and remark about it?

I'm not your victim.

Exactly my point. So stop acting as though you think you are. Or don't. It's entirely up to you.

[stevil]

48. No

You wrote "long time lurkers" - jut like that in caps. If I am not a long time lurker then what did you mean to imply I was? Don't put thoughts in my head - you have no idea what I was thinking when I posted, just what you thought I meant. Ironic if you actually read the diary.

[merrily]

50. Put thoughts in your head? wtf?

I gave your join date, your number of posts and remark that agreeing with this OP about torture motivated to make one of your rare posts. That is all both factual info and info visible to anyone on the board. I never commented on your thoughts or, heaven help us, even tried to put thoughts in your head. It's bad enough you've been complaining this long. Complaining about stuff you're making up is even more annoying. If you want to keep whining, go ahead. You are, of course,k free to post whatever you wish. However, I will not be reading any more of your responses to me on this thread.

[stevil]

52. Alright then

Implying someone is a troll is safer than calling them a troll. You're safe.

[robinlynne]

16. That is what is called a sophism. I eat apples. I eat oranges. Therefor apples are oranges.

[merrily]

30. What is this logical fallacy? "The opposite of an orange = an orange."

Whatever it is, DU's admirers of the Third Way philosopy sure do seem to love that logical fallacy the most.

[robinlynne]

36. I know, my sophism wasn't really there, but I wanted to type quickly...

[merrily]

37. There was more than one kind of logical fallacy. I was not faulting you for

not getting to all of them. (So many fallacies, so little time.)

[robinlynne]

38. lol

[TheKentuckian]

17. No, he is being called on to do his duty to the constitution, the rule of law, justice, and humanity

so he does not foolishly make himself an accessory to crimes against humanity and being very much deserving of impeachment.

As for the rest of your spiel, it is lame nonsense. How is rationalizing, hiding, and making light of these crimes an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice? That is just bullshit and it is flailing as you have already made a mountain of excuses why such a thing shouldn't happen and now are playing another weak tactic toward what you bilge out here as projection, it is your clear intent to drive as far from justice or it's pursuit as possible as you have at every turn and with every excuse and rationalization.

Hell, he is still stupidly "standing with" that piece of pigshit, Clapper, and in turn said human porcine excrement is protecting his underlings even though they have been caught red handed in the cookie jar spying on and interfering with their own civilian oversight which is another huge constitutional crisis level fiasco. So what possible path are we on toward any correction? You can't climb out of the hole if you won't stop fucking digging.

[joeybee12]

18. Unrec for twisted logic and denial and apologism to the nth degree...nt

[Logical]

19. I assumed this was a parody post. Wow, it was a serious one. nt

[merrily]

27. Then I guess you missed the OP this jury commented on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5936569

[99Forever]

20. I advocate the President do his Constitutional duty and apply...

... the Law of the Land to those who have willfully broken it, instead of letting throw this Nation's credibility, legal and moral standards down the toilet.

You want to bend that up like a fucking pretzel to pretend it's anything else, have at it. I see you for exactly what you are, so your opinion of me is worthless.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Did we torture?

Yes.

Is that a crime?

By most accounts, yes.

Should the president act to bring justice?

Most would say yes.

If he fails to act what should happen?

You tell me.

[951-Riverside]

22. If Obama is protecting torturers, I am advocating for his impeachment and I'm not ashamed to say it.

I'm also advocating for putting Cheney, Bush, John Yoo and any military, private or clandestine personnel who encouraged or engaged in rape or torture that led to serious injury or death on trial and anyone in the Obama admin who may be aiding and abetting these people and preventing a real investigation.

I don't think left vs right, I think right vs. wrong.

[wildbilln864]

34. "I don't think left vs right, I think right vs. wrong."

love that quote! Hope you don't mind me stealing it?

[WinkyDink]

23. I think you forgot "America: Love it or Leave It."

[Doctor_J]

24. NOT prosecuting Bush and Cheney should be grounds for impeachment.

The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law of the land

Get as far away as possible from bringing the torturers to justice

Since you claim the president and AG can't do that, who should? And how is calling for prosecution "getting as far as possible from bringing them to justice"

[truebluegreen]

25. Woo hoo!

Get as far away as possible from bringing the torturers to justice - disrupt and distract every possible discussion that might lead to greater unity and cooperation in pursuing them, and instead do their bidding.

That's our president--bringing the torturers to justice! Yeah! ....oh, wait...

[merrily]

28. Opposing torture = teabagger. On DU, Opposite Day doesn't come only once a year.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

31. Every president that America has ever had committed acts worthy of impeachment.

Obama let the torturers go, and this violates the law. Whatever the ramifications of that are, it doesn't change the truth. But you don't get impeached for violating the law, or we wouldn't have presidents. Bush violated international law routinely, most obviously in Iraq. Clinton also violated international law when he felt like it, such as our illegal attacks on Iraq after the failed attempt on George Bush Sr. Bush and Reagan violated international and American law frequently, such as Grenada or the Contras. To be fair, I don't know of an incident where Jimmy Carter ignored the law, but that could just be my own ignorance. Ford should have been impeached for pardoning Nixon, since he was only allowed to become president by promising not to pardon him, but he also partnered up with a dictatorship in Indonesia that was committing genocide, again in violation of international law. And of course Nixon, who I don't think I should even have to go into on this site.

You don't get impeached for violating the law. You get impeached by angering the major stock holders of America, including the intelligence community. Obama's more likely to be impeached for enforcing the law than ignoring it in this case.

[GeorgeGist]

41. OK

[Autumn]

42. I agree, "Facts are for libruls." Which is why your OP is devoid of facts.

Completely devoid of facts. Truthfully, OMC or PW did it so much better.

[REP]

45. If I believe this post made any sense, then I'm advocating for nonsense

If I believe this post isn't nonsense and should be taken seriously, then I'm advocating for protecting nonsense.

If you take either - or any - position, you prove my point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. Why would the GOP want to impeach Obama for colluding with them to not prosecute GOPers?

That' where your argument breaks down.

If torture did occur and Obama is not taking action against it then he is an accessory after the fact except no one of consequence is going to pursue him because they are the perpetrators.

Obama is also politically safe because a plurality of Americans will shrug-off this report. I'd wager after 9/11 most Americans would have poured the water themselves. If they believe the interrogations in any way contributed to finding other terrorists or preventing additional attacks they will turn on Obama if he seeks to prosecute. It may be an ugly fact to admit but it is a fact that must be admitted nonetheless.

[dissentient]

51. Nonsense

[Number23]

53. "You've already gone halfway there by distracting the discussion away from torture"

Hasn't that been the intent of all of this jack assery?? Starting 125 threads rehashing a quote he made a while ago and saying practically nothing about Cheney, Bush, Rice -- the people who started this odious practice in the first place?

I wish to GOD that the "he talks purty but doesn't do anything" crowd would make up their freaking minds. Because this endless wailing over a quote and saying little about what he's actually DONE sure sounds like the squeals of the impotent, not politically engaged grown folks talking about a really important event in our history right now. It's times like this that DU shows how utterly clueless and embarrassing it can be.

[Hekate]

56. +1 you said it, and so did the OP

I am worn out and disgusted with DU.