Once again, DUers rush to Judge Obama based on a headline.

[berni_mccoy]

In reference to the LBN article about Obama asking for a delay: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3742673&mesg_id=3742673

It's as if most DUers in that thread never read past the headline. If they did, they'd realize two very important things: 1) it's only a two week extension and, 2) Rove's attorney have since signaled they are willing to give in (no 5th and no exec privilege about Siegleman).

Obama isn't happy with their current position and wants them to fully testify about all of it without privilege. He's giving them a shot do to the right thing. Obama is. It's the first time Obama has had a say in it. Official statement from the WH on this:

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened," Craig told The Washington Post. "But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So, for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle."

It was only after Obama got involved did Rove signal he would testify regarding Siegleman without privilege.

[Pirate Smile]

1. You mean sometimes Headlines are deceptive? Meant to provoke a strong response?

Sometimes tell a half-truth, implying something that is not true??!!

I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED!

and people fell for it? No, I can't believe it. ;)

[Jennicut]

3. Gotta Luv the MSM

[OKNancy]

5. It wasn't MSN that wrote the headline the OP is talking about n/t

[JTFrog]

13. MSM = mainstream media.... n/t

[OKNancy]

14. I know what MSM means. I was an LBN mod for over two years

unless you consider rawstory to be MSM. They are not in my book. the N was a typo.

[Jennicut]

22. Sorry, Gotta luv Rawstory then.

Both are increasingly using inflammatory headlines and slanting news a certain way to fit an agenda.

[Cha]

24. The is the second time in my

recent memory that rawstory has done this..and certain DUers jump on it like it was a bonus.

[JTFrog]

31. I haven't considered much other than maybe you have a mod chip on your shoulder.

You obviously just assumed it was a typo. I obviously just gave the definition of the term the poster intentionally used, regardless of what I consider rawstory to be.

:shrug.

[OKNancy]

35. You are really confused.

We were discussing the headline.

1. Poster says got to love the MSM
2. I post it wasn't the MSN ( a typo on my part - I should have written MSM)
3. You jump in and try to school me
4. I know what MSM means and that rawstory isn't MSM
5. you post this weird post

[JTFrog]

36. Yep didn't realize you meant the typo was on your part. Happens all the time in forums.

And funny that you instantly took my original reply to mean that I was trying to "school you". Sorry you took that personally, but w/e.

:shrug:

[vaberella]

25. And I mean those people were bashing Obama left and right.

I was a bit surprised by the action. I realize people running on a tangent but they were equating him to Bush. That I found beyond the pale.

[OKNancy]

that's what I was getting at in my post (s)

in LBN. The headline is also purposely inflammatory. The original article was more benign

[Pirate Smile]

6. I hate it when they do that or they write an entire article premised on something bad or negative,

and then in the last paragraph they mention a tidbit that counters the entire premise of the negative article. A lot of people don't bother to read all the way through and are perfectly happy to jump to the worst conclusion even when it isn't justified. It happens here all the time.

[OKNancy]

11. I hate to say it... but I will

rawstory is used a lot here but I will not read there. Unless they wrote and investigated the story themselves, too often it is just regurgitated news someone read or even worse, saw on TV. Actually, the story is against LBN rules, but I gave up on that rule a long time ago.

Rule 5: Please make an effort to link directly to the original source of an article, instead of linking to sites that have re-published someone else's content, or re-packaged someone else's content as their own.

What readers need to do if they insist on using the repackaged "news" is go to the original article if it is mentioned or even google the main characters in the story and get to the source of the article.

[berni_mccoy]

56. The rule was enforced. The post has been locked in LBN and moved to this forum.

[firedupdem]

2. Thanks for this. I had not been to LBN yet today. It's easier for

some to throw stones instead of reading the entire article.

[AzDar]

4. Well, at the very least, Rover seems to have no fear of the Obama Administration.

He's been all over :puke: teevee this morning blaming the Economic Crisis squarely on them.

[katandmoon]

7. Since when do Republicans EVER compromise? Answer: NEVER.

[berni_mccoy]

33. Rove has already shown that he's willing to testify sans privilege AFTER Obama got involved.

[katandmoon]

55. Do you really thing Rove is planning to give anything up when he testifies?

He's just playing a game with Obama, playing him against Conyers.

[uponit7771]

69. Hubris, the Bush admin was full of shallow short term thinkers with no since of implementation...

...I wouldn't be surprised if Rove uses the "my attorney said it was OK" defense ad nausea

[TacticalPeek]

8. Settle? Rove shouldn't get to pick what to testify about.

They should no more 'settle' with Rove than they settle with anyone else being arrested.

[AyanEva]

19. Exactly!

I'm still just as annoyed after reading this as I was before reading this. Rove shouldn't get what looks to be a plea bargain or something. He and the last administration have done far too much damage and I'm all out of sympathy for the lot.

[Aloha Spirit]

9. I cannot wait for Rove to lie under oath. Please let this happen.

Thanks for posting this~ I will always appreciate a reminder to actually read things for myself:toast:

[phleshdef]

10. Obama never promised to prosecute anyone in the first place.

We voted him in knowing that he probably wouldn't try and take on the previous administration.

As I've said before, I'd like to see justice served but I also would like to see the Obama administration be successful and starting a whole new political war over the last administration's sins could jeopardize that.

[Mimi Bernard]

62. Read minds much?

"We" voted for him with that in mind?

[treestar]

12. So true, especially on this legal based stuff

Anyone who deals with the courts knows how slowly things move and how many continuances happen and how things are not black and white. The administration is being careful enough to figure out what arguments they want to make.

[azmouse]

15. A whole lot of over-reacting on that thread.

Shameful.

[polmaven]

16. We do tend to jump first,

ask questions later, don't we? A lot of the reactions there are WAY premature.

But then, why am I the LEAST bit surprised?

[merh]

17. that rawstory reporter is always tainting and slanting the articles

to smear obama - he definitely doesn't have hero worship.

I'm used to waiting on this and believe me folks, I've been waiting a lot longer than you all have been aware of these abuses.

I don't have a problem with efforts to compromise - I want the truth and maybe the compromise will get us there. You know, more flies with honey. The efforts mean they are aware of it and working on this, that is a good thing and so much better than ignoring it.

[vaberella]

26. Agreed and Hi merh, I haven't seen you in ages.

[merh]

27. hello -

i'm not around as much as I once was, sometimes the atmosphere isn't conducive to good health -

hope you are well :hi:

[ohtransplant]

18. Maybe the presidency as interpreted by our most recent

"unitary executive"(*) shouldn't be as powerful as * and company asserted.(See below) Maybe congress needs to re-assert their powers as a separate branch of government.

"But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency."

[Spazito]

20. Yep, I have come to treat those types of headlines with great...

skepticism, especially when they are an interpretation of something and written by Byrne. I have yet to find my skepticism to be unwarranted and the facts, once revealed, are quite different from the interpretation when it comes to what the Obama administration is actually doing and why.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Many of us are reactionaries......

the media knows that, and so does the OPs who are attempting to drive a wedge between us and the President.

[uponit7771]

66. Some of them are getting Freepish, I've seen this pattern happen 3 times too many

[FrenchieCat]

67. They strive on it......

But they don't realize that they are only cutting off their own fucking nose to spite their funky "think they are so smart" faces.

[bdamomma]

80. oh definitely the media is in the back pocket of corporations.

of course they are trying to pit Americans against this new President, sorry, won't work we already know the media's strategy.

[azmouse]

23. kick

[dcindian]

28. comprimise on the law both sides to settle?

No

[berni_mccoy]

29. No one is saying compromise the law. They are saying to come to an agreement

about Rove's testimony.

Sure Congress can force him to be there, but he can invoke the 5th and/or executive privelage.

Do you really want to hear Rove say "My lawyers have instructed me to not answer that on the grounds it may incriminate me?"

Obama is pushing to get real answers from a meaningful testimony.

Your reaction as well as others suggest he is subverting justice, a complete distortion of reality.

[dcindian]

32. It has been long enough.

This man and others have murdered and tortured people by order.

It is time.

Any delay any non release of information is subverting justice and sorry but one does not have to distort reality to see it as such.

[berni_mccoy]

38. And if you want *any* of them to be brought to justice, you have to convince at least one of them

to testify. Even if Rove is brought in to Congress to testify, there is nothing to force him to speak. Thus an agreement on testimony would be bring us much closer to justice than simply being forced into Congress.

[dcindian]

39. No we don't have to convince them to speak.

The current administration has all the access it needs to what went on.

[berni_mccoy]

44. Really? You've seen the evidence the Administration has access to? HANGEM THEN!

No testimony needed. No process. We got all the proof we need of who did what. Let's go.

:sarcasm:

[dcindian]

45. Every thing done at the white house is taped.

Sorry your sarcasm is not needed here.

[berni_mccoy]

47. Oh, and we are sure the Bush Admin adhered to that policy and conducted every

decision in the WH.

You believe they are criminals and yet you believe they played by the book. Strange.

[dcindian]

48. Well that would be against the law then wouldn't it.

But hey lets wait a few more years to find out.

[berni_mccoy]

49. 2 Weeks = "A Few Years" -- thanks, now I understand where you are coming from

:crazy: :freak: :crazy:

[dcindian]

51. It has been years already.

Too long.

[berni_mccoy]

52. And Obama has gotten results in days.

[dcindian]

58. Well let us hope so.

The men who did these terrible things need to be brought to justice. I don't think it will happen any time soon and that is too bad since it seems it has been based on political convenience and not the law. What they are checking into Mr. Rove about is small potatoes compared to what they will need to do for Bush and Cheney and so far it is delay after delay.

Please feel free to prove me wrong this time next year I would be overjoyed if you are right. Until that time I will continue to expect more from the oval office then what is happening on this front.

[EraOfResponsibility]

60. You don't want justice, you want revenge n/m

[dcindian]

72. Revenge for what?

?

[4lbs]

30. Looks like many of the negative knee-jerk reactionaries surfaced in that other thread.

Interesting how none of them are posting a "thanks for the clarification" here....

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Fanatical Clintonites behaving like Fanatical Clintonites

Nothing particularly new. These people will find reason to gripe about Obama until January 20, 2017. They are lunatics, and not worth the effort.

[Life Long Dem]

34. Rove's attorney has nothing to do with Obama.

Rove's attorney is the one who put a motion in to the court. Obama has no say in what the judge does. That's just the law, and we are not in the Bush administration.

[berni_mccoy]

37. According to the story, The Acting Assistant AG filed the motion for a 2 week extension.

Not Rove's lawyer.

[Life Long Dem]

53. But it doesn't say it was on Obama's part that the motion be filed.

It was on the AG's decision to file the motion. Whether appointed by Obama or not. I would think if Obama interfered it would compromise Rove's defense, and the motion would most likely be a request from Rove or his attorney.

[berni_mccoy]

54. I think it's fair to say if the AG files a motion and the WH comments on it

without rebuking it, that it was supported by Obama. I don't take issue with tying this to Obama.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. People believe what they want to believe

Not much use arguing with fanatics one way or the other.

[Stuckinthebush]

42. DUers have knee jerk reaction?

No?! I'm shocked.

:sarcasm:

[last_texas_dem]

43. But what issues of executive power is the Obama administration concerned about?

I freely admit to being no legal expert, and am doing my best to keep my knee from jerking... but this reads as if the Obama administration would be concerned about preserving the expansion of (the citation of) "executive privilege" that occurred under the * administration. From my understanding, *that* expansion was not a good thing, and this is not something I would want the Obama administration to be seeking to preserve. Not engaging in the excesses of * has nothing to do with "undermin(ing) or weaken(ing) the institution of the presidency."

[berni_mccoy]

46. That's a good question.

Best guess is that by forcing the parties to come to some agreement, he's avoiding a potential conflict that could arise between Congress and the Executive branch. Obama has stated he doesn't want members of the DoD to be distracted with "looking over their shoulders while they have a critical job to perform". I believe it is this protection he is seeking to uphold. And I believe he will internally investigate members of the Defense portion of the administration as he has proven he is for justice and transparency. But he doesn't want Congress doing that.

And judging by the knee-jerk reactionists here, he's probably right.

[uponit7771]

65. Same thing with states secrets issues with me, the Bush admin was soooo sloppy I don't

...doubt that they screwed up something on purpose to tie Obama's hands or didn't give a damn about procedures and tied a whole departments hands.

[Number23]

50. It may have been this part of the story that caused the furor

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened," Craig told The Washington Post. "But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So, for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle."

Some may have interpreted this to mean that Obama is not going to do anything because it could possibly affect his presidential powers in the future.

I didn't read through that entire thread because so many of the comments were so ridiculous. But if Obama is considering watering down Bush's offenses in order to preserve his own strength, I do find that disappointing, if not totally understandable.

[uponit7771]

68. Because the Bush admin overall has been so sloppy I read it as the Bush admin burning down the house

...before leaving town and now there's little Obama can do to protect the executive branch.

[mmonk]

57. My question would be is how would his having to testify weaken

the presidency and second, urging both sides to settle what exactly?

[berni_mccoy]

59. see my response to a similar question above

Just a guess, but: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8203431&mesg_id=8204405

[mmonk]

64. Maybe but if I ever get subpoenaed, I'd like to negotiate an agreement

before I testify like him.

[Mimi Bernard]

61. It's unfair to say that we have been looking at the headline only

The compromise part is not part of the headline, yet some have been bother by the thought of a compromise.

[EraOfResponsibility]

63. No, actually, it's not n/m

[snowbear]

70. Bah Bye Mimi..

.
.

We hardly knew ya.

-

[FrenchieCat]

71. Well, pretty soon,

as we line up to kick Obama's ass for every thing he even contemplates,
we are going to render him less able to deal with issues like
health care reform and the likes.

In otherwords, the criticism based on barely nothing is starting to pile up,
and instead of Obama having the kind of mandate to get things done,
we'll have to kiss varied reforms goodbye,
due to our neutering him for no fucking reason!

I just hope we don't end up being too righteous and too rigid
and end up screwing our chance for a variety of changes.

[Danger Mouse]

73. That was one of the most incredible knee-jerk reactions I have ever seen on DU.

Ever.
It's amazing.

[H2O Man]

74. True.

It is important to read much more than the headlines .... and more than is being reported by the corporate media. In this situation, for example, a person cannot have an accurate idea of what is going on behind the scenes from reading either the headlines or the articles in the corporate media.

Before Obama took office, I had posted some information regarding the strugle taking place in the transfer of power from the Bush-Cheney administration, to the Obama-Biden administration. That information allows people to have an accurate grasp of "why" things are happening as they are. Without it, one's reactions to the corporate media are uninformed emotional responses -- which is exactly what the corporate media is attempting to cause.

Knowing what is actually going on does not equate with agreeing with the process, or supporting the way things are playing out. But it does allow for a rational judgement which is otherwise impossible.

[HamdenRice]

75. Could you provide a link to that post of yours? Thanks in advance! nt

[H2O Man]

81. What I can do

is review some of the general information (I don't keep links to things I write here on threads other than those that I put in my DU "journal").

During the period of time between the November election, and Obama taking office, there were disagreements between the two camps on what the incoming administration had access to from the outgoing administration's records. The Bush administration -- and specifically the OVP in terms of all of its related communications -- has made claims to secrecy and E.P. far beyond any claims made by any administration in the past.

Those claims included the "right" to keep specific information away from the incoming administration. In the numerous meetings that took place during that period, those people working for the President-elect reached some compromises with the Cheney administration, and most of the things that have been discussed both in the headlines/corporate media and on DU regarding, for example, Karl Rove, relate to this.

However, the actual forum where this agreement is of little consequence would be if the Congress actually does take their case forward to the federal courts. In that context, it would be of no real significance if the administration (DoJ) said they do or do not support the Rove-Bush claim -- unless, of course, they took on the case as their own, which is highly unlikely, as they lack the necessary standing.

The federal courts would have two options: to go by the Constitution, and rule in Congress's favor; or it could bend/break the law, and support Rove. One can look at this two ways -- the USSC has ruled against the Bush administration relatively frequently on some issues, but has upheld VP Cheney's revolutionary claims to keep secrets in others.

I have little faith in the current USSC. And though I understand some of the reasoning behind the compromises between the Bush and Obama teams, as a rule, I find compromises on issues which can involve the Constitution to be dangerous.

[HamdenRice]

82. Thanks. Somehow the news of Cheney's attempt to maintain secrecy...

with respect to the incoming administration had escaped my attention. Sounds like a preposterous claim on Cheney's part, but believable.

[berni_mccoy]

77. Thank you H2O Man.

You are a true DUer with great mastery of logic, reasoning and discourse.

[Peacetrain]

78. You have the gift my friend

When others fall to the four letter responses, you are expansive in your reply. The balm on the wound
:hi:

[Orsino]

76. And why do we think Rove has agreed to testify without privilege?

Do we believe that Rove has been cornered, and that principled stands by Democrats have suddenly shamed him into a full confession? Or is it more likely that certain subjects will be off-limits, or that he's been promised some sort of immunity, and that Rove's testimony will be more of the same weak-ass theater?

edit: I should add that I'm ready to credit Obama if anything substantial comes of Rove's testimony, but I'm not optimistic.

[berni_mccoy]

79. In the article, his lawyer has stated as much, but only about the Siegelmen case.

And this was *after* Obama got involved.