I thought long and hard before posting this - because in general I think the absence of a thread on a topic is only an indication that you should start one if you are interested. However, it is time to go past this generalization and specifically observe that behaviors that would earn President Bush immediate GD and Pit threads are being ignored by our board members that support President Obama - namely, most of them.
This is the sort of news that would have caused page after page of outrage here just a year ago. But looking at GD this morning shows me that people here care more about sprawl, welfare and TWA 800. The Pit is dominated by the story of Stoid in several threads.
Now, frankly, a person could fairly conclude that Obama partisans are giving their man a pass for behavior they strongly condemned in the past, or at least giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I do regard it to be mostly job of the opposition to keep the other side honest, so I won’t press this too much. But on a board that has pretensions to fighting ignorance, perhaps it would be useful for posters here to look at their own blind spots.
I am an Obama partisan, so right now I’m in the giving him the benefit of the doubt mode. In the back of my mind I can rationalize that the point has been put forth – that the abuse was horrible, more than what the pictures we *have *seen indicate, and we can now fully admit it and blame it on the former administration, and the actual photos being released would be too inflammatory to do any good.
On the other hand, I’m fairly pissed that he said one thing and did another. I think it was poorly handled from the get go and he painted himself into a corner.
I think this is the issue for me. He’s proven that he’s thought in a sophisticated way about this tuff and that his conclusions on things I can judge are often the right ones, while Bush proved that he was not only reckless but always wrong. So of course my views of their policies in the absence of full information is going to be different.
That said, I do think a lot of Obama fans have really dropped the ball on holding his feet to the fire on the torture issues (in general, I’d give him a C-minus). Although that’s not true about the progressive blogs, which are all over it. (And ISTM that’s a realy difference between commentary on the left vs. what we saw on the right during the Bush Administration, although I admit I never read any of that with regularity.)
Are you implying that conservatives were seldom critical of Bush? Because I subscribe to the National Review and read their website - they were often critical of Bush for many things.
Immigration policy, the large amounts of spending, the Harriet Miers nomination and the steel protection in his first term instantly come to mind here.
He didn’t mention Global Warming, Stem Cell Research or Gay Marriage either. What’s your point? Did you think it was an exhaustive list?
Personally I think it’s still hard to say…it’s to early in the game thus far to see how this will all play out. Obama and his team coach things in broad generalities, and it’s difficult to judge at this time how these policy initiatives will play out in the real world…IOW, what it’s all going to mean and how it will actually all work. So, I think there is a lot of ‘benefit of the doubt’ type stances at this time.
That will change in the next couple of months or by next year I’d say. The honeymoon will be over and Obama’s policies will start having a real impact one way or the other. At that point we’ll all be better able to judge how well or poorly he’s doing, or how his initiatives play out in the real world.
Remember that Bush was a contentious president right from the get go due to the 2000 election. Even so and leaving aside the folks who were opposed to Bush from the start it was several years before the real anti-Bush sentiments got a full head of steam…after his policies and initiatives really started to roll and their effects really started to sink in. Obama is coming into a much less contentious (initial) situation…but I expect that sooner or later the honeymoon will be over and we’ll start seeing the effects of his policies on the country and judging them without any rose colored glasses…or without the current undirected antipathy some anti-Obama folks are looking at things.
I was disappointed to hear about these things, and no, it’s not OK with me when Obama does it. Just because I voted for him I’m not going to try and justify everything he does.
Sounds like bullshit to me. If there’s no further understanding of what went on, then it’s the same as what we’ve already seen, and what the world already knows about. Even if it’s not, I believe that the openness of the gov’t and rule of law is too important to throw away over hypothetical greater danger.
The thread is about torture and prisoner abuse :rolleyes:, and the Republicans’ efforts to foist responsibility for it onto the Democrats however they can. This thread is an example, apparently inspired by other attempts to show that Pelosi got a briefing of some kind at some time.
Nice to see William Buckley portrayed as somehow still typical of mainstream Republican thinking.
I really think you should go back and re-read the OP…it’s really not about torture and prisoner abuse…or even about foisting responsibility for it on the Dems. Those were simply examples the OP was using…not the subject of the thread.
As for what Obama should do about it, I agree with him about the narrow topic of releasing more info to prove something the world already knows.
The problem I have is with his reluctance to demonstrate that we do believe in the law and the human principles behind it, by letting the world know as well how exactly such behavior came to be authorized and by whom exactly. Preemptive grants of amnesty to war criminals do not have a good record of long-term effectiveness
Someone made the comment in another thread that if the facts don’t fit the narrative, one usually tends to discard the facts.
While I didn’t agree with his specific point, I thought that was a good comment in general and a good self-test for all of us from time-to-time.
Obama came into office with an over-the-top outpouring of enthusiasm for a New Kind of President, given his rags-to-riches story and the once unthinkable notion of electing a black man as leader of the free world.
A lot of what he’s done since is good old fashioned rough-and-tumble machine politics, combined with his excellent communication skills drowning out the substance of his policies.
The two that immediately come to my mind are
The almost complete quid-pro-quo for organized labor. The re-jiggering of rights in the GM and Chrysler deals in favor of the unions on a big scale. The attempt (still ongoing) to kill the D.C. school voucher program as a sop to the teacher’s unions on a smaller scale, despite endless promises of the White House supporting ‘whatever works’.
The brazen proposals to run up trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see to atone for the supposed Fiscal Irresponsibility of the Bush administration (who’s deficits were far smaller). To make a permanent step change in government spending from the historical 18-20% of GDP to a new plateau of 25-27% of GDP. Forecasted growth of 3.5% in GDP by the end of this year, which causes most serious folk to roll their eyes and groan. Promises of earmark reform, which have been followed up with absolutely nothing in terms of any White House resistance to earmarks.
This is an incredible shift in the scope of government spending and involvement and I’m still surprised at the absence of debate and discussion - as in, front page news day after day after day - regarding this. Even as the White House touts the budget with leaders like ‘A Era of New Responsibility’ and so forth.
Obama has choices to detain, release, try. All are “bad” choices. So don’t judge Obama too harshly when he has to make one.
Whatever Obama decides, I’m am sure he will make sure that Congress is behind him. He can still salvage something with perception (acting together - Obama vs. acting alone - Bush);
To be sure, he is currently detaining under the AUMF statute. It’s arguable whether he would have the power to detain without it. He can detain so long as we are in a state of “war.”
I don’t purport to know which of those choices he should make. Maybe detain them, but say they only became unreleasable terrorists because they were detained for so long already (ie, blame Bush).
Dutch here, so I really should not have an opinion in the matter, but here’s mine anyway.
Obama is, above all, an practical idealist. Not so much consistent on any one principle. What mattered most for him was that the actual torture should stop. He has done so.
Now, the release of the photos would trigger a lot of other, new problems. I think Obama is spot on if he says that photos are more powerful to generate a backlash against the USA . Pictures are stronger then words, especially seeing as a lot of people are illiterate. Remember the outrage aroudn the world over the photo’s of prison guard whatshername, Lynndy England?
G’Bay is a problem Obama inherited from Bush and solved. He is wise not to make matters any worse.
I would imagine that before a person concluded that, they would conduct a search on a similar scandal - perhaps the original Abu Ghraib photos scandal in 2004 and compare the number and length of threads generated by that scandal with the number and length of threads generated by this scandal. My search-fu is weak, so I hope someone would do that - my attempts are not locating many threads, perhaps due to poor choice of search terms (“Abu Ghriab” and photos in GD, no time limit.)
For the record, I oppose indefinite detention without charge or trial regardless of who’s in the Oval Office and I think the photos will come out sooner or later, perhaps a practical compromise would be a public release in 2011 - will most troops be out of Iraq by then? I firmly believe that crimes committed by U.S. soldiers should be prosecuted publicly and not in secret, because the secrecy does not protect the country’s long-term interests.
What proof do you have it has stopped? Especially with rendition centers not even in the USA? You think it’s stopped. But why should you? He’s pretty much broken dozens of campain promises already after only being in office a short period of time.
Even assuming it is, your claim of him being practical is quite laughable. Why did he release the intelligence memos if he was merely intent on ending torture? For what purpose would that serve? No, what happened was is that Obama doesn’t know wth he is doing. He h\is a little puppet of the men he surrounds himself with, and he’s always in “re-election mode”. He thought releasing the memos was going to harm republicans. That’s all. After it blew up in his and his party’s face, as it is now, he’s trying to put the djinni back in the bottle.
I’m glad you like our liar in chief Adolf Obama, though. Come join zee von vorld order. Don’t forget to send your troops. You are sending them, right?
