Why not? Obama is about as liberal as you’re gonna get for a POTUS on torture: do it, but pretend not to like it.
You can build a similar case for impeaching Obama for all his crimes, both domestic and foreign, as Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc. but it doesn’t make any sense to act like it could ever happen. It’d be like a street gang getting rid of their boss for killing rivals, dealing drugs, and owning illegal firearms. If a POTUS is impeached it’s for petty things, not for following the stated goals of the system.
Obama has not stopped it and it is being done as an executive branch activity. He either condones it, turns a blind eye to it or is too weak to stop it. None of these is an excuse for failing to stop not just this instance, but this sort of thing in general.
Bush presumably stopped Abu Ghraib once it became known. He certainly set the tone for torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other places and in my opinion was subject to reasonable impeachment and is still subject to being tried as a war criminal. As for Abu Ghraib taken in isolation, perhaps not, but I would be comfortable if he had been impeached over it.
The meat of this argument has been adequately handled by others, but I do have a trifling point to raise:
Sure, and look what happened.
It’s awfully puzzling that *this *is the example the OP chose to use given that the stated reason for Manning’s treatment was fear that he might harm himself.
He didn’t hang himself with his undies, he used poison that a corrupt/duped guard smuggled in for him.
There is no reason to spend each and every day assaulting this man’s psyche except. That some of his jailers and their apologists get satisfaction from imposing this humiliation isn’t a valid reason. We’ve become a terribly cruel people.
Bush demonstrated clearly what spoiled rich kids can do. Romney is another one that has had the world handed to him and he has no concept of what the rest of us live like. I am sure he thinks taxes for the rich should be slashed.
On that point you’re clearly wrong. The outrage against intrusive airport security is very much a right-wing issue, although it wasn’t before 2008. In fairness to the right wing, airport security has become more onerous and invasive since then.
Of course, none of this matters to any of you glibtards, since you “sleep naked all the time, heh!” Not that a single day of this treatment would reduce you disingenuous cowards to a blubbering heap or anything. And I don’t suppose it would do any good to point out that Manning hasn’t been convicted of any crime, but since we all know he’s guilty the government may as well start punishing him now, since the Constitution doesn’t apply when the government is really, really mad at someone.
While we’re at it, could we maybe get another thread filled with cheap partisan gotchas over people not condemning Obama vigorously enough for continuing the policies of the Bush administration? Those are always super convincing.
Romney isn’t Bush. I don’t care at all for Republicans and have never voted for one (I did vote for Anderson as an Independent in 80 and he was previously a Republican). Romney seems like a typical opportunistic politician, yet at this point he appears to me to be no worse than Obama. The health care reform bill is based on what he did in Massachusetts and it is really closer to being accurately called Romneycare than Obamacare since he pushed for it and Obama would have taken any reform.
You do realize that we’ve already addressed the points made in all of those cites? Your reposting them served no purpose at all given you did nothing to make any furtherance in the argument and essentially are reiterating stuff said that has already been addressed.
Really? You raise the issues, I address them and I am the onegoing off topic???
You attack lefties and then criticize me for saying that righties do the same thing?
That’s just sad.
All you have left is typing blindly from the playbook and then attempt to persuade the “refs” that I committed a foul when I reply to your talking points and you have no answer.