Dems Becoming "Party Of CHUMPS" - We Should Be OUTRAGED At Lack Of Responsibility (Turley)

[kpete]

Pelosi Changes Account On Briefing On Torture

There were many things that she could have done in the face of a war crime. Instead, she and dozens of legislators were ultimately briefed on a program and remains silent — as they campaigned on their commitment to human rights and civil liberties.

Published 1, May 9, 2009

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a new statement (and explanation) after released documents appeared to contradict her earlier denials that she had ever been briefed on the use of torture. As discussed in a prior blog, Pelosi previously insisted that she was never told that these “enhanced techniques” (aka torture) were being used and assumed that the briefing concerned just a hypothetical use of the methods. Now, she is changing her story to acknowledge that she, at a minimum, knew that the methods would be used — even though she is denying that she was actually told that they had been used. I discussed the story on this segment of Rachel Maddow’s show.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090508/pl_usnw/pelosi_statement_on_congressional_briefings_on_enhanced_interrogation_techniques

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

The Bush Administration knew these members all too well. They fully briefed them on torture on the anniversary of 9-11, knowing that they would not dare to try to stop the program. Then, they held these briefing over their heads over years as the Democrats quietly blocked investigations and protected people like former Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to answer questions on torture.

Democrats cannot demand justice for Bush officials without holding these democratic members also accountable. This is becoming a party of chumps, who will accept any spin to excuse the conduct of their own leaders while denouncing the conduct of GOP leaders. These very same Democratic members, particularly Pelosi, blocked past efforts to investigate the torture allegations and blocked any effort to look into impeachment due to the commission of war crimes. It is now clear (as some of us have been saying for years) that these investigations would have revealed the involvement of Democratic members.

On the face of this latest explanation, Democratic voters should be outraged on the lack of personal responsibility claimed by leaders like Pelosi. They are basically claimed that oversight means little more than being briefed with no affirmative duty to challenge such claims as torture being perfectly legal. Any research into waterboarding would have shown that it has long been defined as torture and a crime by the United States. Yet, these members did not want to be in a position of having to question a popular president, particularly on the anniversary of 9-11. They preferred to remain in willful blindness and public popularity. Now that the public is outraged by the torture, there is an effort to re-write the history and excuse the lack of action.

more at:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/09/pelosi-changes-account-on-briefing-on-torture/#more-10768

[The Magistrate]

1. Once Again, Ma'am, Turley Attacks Democrats Rather Than The Actual Republican Criminals

This is why he gets so much time on air, because he is in fact pressing a line that works to the advantage of the criminals of the Bush administration.

Someone here put the matter very well recently, calling it truly bizarre:

Mom: Jimmy, did you break my prize vase?
Jimmy: well, yeah, but Tommy saw me do it and didn't tell on me!
Mom: Tommy, its time to punish you for not telling on your brother.
Tommy: but what about Jimmy? He broke the vase?
Mom: that was in the past, its time to move on.

[islandmkl]

4. except, in this case example...

Tommy actually condoned, approved, and thereby, encouraged Jimmy to not only break the vase, but to continue to do such actions...

[The Magistrate]

8. Nonesense, Sir: For Criminal Liability, Jimmy Has To Direct Tommy; Tommy Must Be Jimmy's Agent

The chant of 'condone, approve, and thereby encourage' is simply noise. In this instance, the noise serves only to defend the actual criminals of the Bush administration. Make no mistake in this, Sir: Turley is not helping the cause of prosecuting criminals in the Bush administration.

[islandmkl]

12. noise??

you seem to want to isolate the 'criminals' into one camp, only...

are you of the mind that the executive branch wields singular power over policy?

to disregard the part the Congress (controlled by the Democrats the last 2 years, by the way) played in this series of crimes is to play into the hands of those who perpetrated these crimes...

there is no 'look over there' involved in Turley's assessment (and i am no fan of his, in general)...all those who allowed these activities should be held accountable...

per your assessment, the Nuremburg trials were needless, as Hitler was dead...

[The Magistrate]

15. Yes, Sir, Noise, And Yes, The Actual Criminals Are Isolated In a Single Camp, And Should Be

There is no criminal liability in this matter for anyone but the leaders of the Executive branch who conceived the policy and their subordinates who executed it.

At Nurenberg, people were tried for crimes they personally committed, orders they gave directly, and for obeying those orders. No one was tried for 'knowing of these crimes and doing nothing' or any such nonesense, for such a thing opens no criminal liability. To give an illustration, no member of the Reichstag was tried for voting for the 'Enabling Decree' which gave Hitler the dictatorial powers employed to commit the crimes persons were hanged for by verdict of the Nurenberg tribunal.

[Two Americas]

34. utterly absurd

No one would suggest that Reichstag members who voted for the Enabling Acts should have been tried for the crimes of Nazi high officials and hanged. However, so what? That is entirely irrelevant.

You are arguing in effect that at that time no one should have criticized them for that because their guilt was - in a strictly legalistic sense - less than the people who used those laws to commit horrendous crimes. You are arguing that those who enable evil are innocent. That is a dangerous doctrine.

Those who enable evil, those who are charged with preventing evil and fail, are the ones we should focus on the most and hold the most responsible. Otherwise, there is no way to ever prevent evil from happening.


...

[The Magistrate]

40. Your Statement, Sir, Is Nonesense

In a climate where persons are being continually called criminal for 'enabling' crimes committed by others, it is quite proper to enquire into whether persons who explicitly voted to give a governing authority the power to commit major crimes were tried for that action. No one who voted for that decree was under any illusions about how it would be used, and far from all who voted for it were Nazi party members.

My interest is in seeing that those persons who actually committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in their custody are prosecuted for it. What advances this is good, what retards it is bad. Clouding the issue, in the manner you and some others are doing, with cries that persons who did not actually commit the crimes in question should be regarded as culpable, as guilty, etc., do not advance the object of prosecuting the persons who actually committed the crimes.

[Two Americas]

47. that may be

I have not called Pelosi a criminal. Others may have. I don't know.

I too have an interest in seeing that those persons who actually committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in their custody are prosecuted for it. Are you slyly suggesting otherwise? What does that have to do with a discussion about possible complicity and enabling?

Ho am I "clouding the issue?" I reject that unfounded charge. The article in the OP is discussing complicity and enabling. That, therefore, is the issue we are discussing. I have not clouded that issue.


...

[The Magistrate]

50. Your Words, Sir: "I would also argue that Pelosi's crime is worse"

[Two Americas]

52. yes

In this sense of the word - wicked; offense; an evil act not necessarily punishable by law; as in "crimes of the heart."

I was responding to your story about the children, where no literal criminal act need be involved.


...

[The Magistrate]

54. You Will Have To Back Water Lots Better Than That, Sir....

"The bleatin' o' the kid incites the Tiger."

[Two Americas]

61. oh nonsense

I am not backing down at all. My argument does not depend upon the one word you have latched onto, and I believe you well know that to be true.

[The Magistrate]

63. Again, Sir, Your Words: "I would also argue that Pelosi's crime is worse"

You are maintaining that the actions, or rather inactions, of Democratic leaders in Congress, at a time when they were in the minority, constitute greater crimes than the actual torture of prisoners in custody by the Bush administration.



"Thine own mouth condemneth thee."

[Two Americas]

65. no I am not

I can see that you are going to ride that one horse you happened upon as far as you can. That was a lucky break for you, wasn't it? You know it, I know it, you know that I know it. But I guess there is the hope that the other readers can be fooled.

I said that in some ways those who stand by and allow evil are more guilty than the perpetrators, since evil triumphs when good people do nothing. That has nothing to do with legal liability. You know that.


...

[The Magistrate]

67. And That Statement, Sir, Is Nonesense: The Perpetrators are Guilty, and No One Else

No one has ever been hauled into court on a charge of watching a crime take place, peace to the finale of 'Seinfeld'....

[Two Americas]

69. really?

There is no guilt possible other than and beyond that which would lead to people being hauled into court on criminal charges? Nothing else can ever be criticized? Are you sure that is where you want to stand on this?

[The Magistrate]

79. Guilt Under Law Concerns Me, Sir

Nothing else in this matter is worth so much as half a dozen words.

The idea that perpetrators of a crime bear less guilt than others, which you continue to maintain, is sentimentality of the rankest style.

[Two Americas]

88. no argument there

So what? Guilt under the law concerns me, as well. What does that have to do with this discussion?

[The Magistrate]

94. That, Sir, Is Poor Enough To Bring This Near Standards Of Little League 'Slaughter Rules'...

[Two Americas]

97. whatever that means

I welcome hearing any possible argument you can make to defend your case. I am even open to being shown where I am wrong on this. If you are hoping for an exchange of insults, however, you will be disappointed.


...

[sammythecat]

150. I agree with you completely.

IF, and I want to stress that word, Nancy Pelosi knew exactly what was going on, and just stood back and allowed it to happen while doing nothing to stop it, then, even if that's not a criminal action, it is repugnant in the extreme. Maybe not as criminal, or maybe not criminal at all, but just as disgustingly shameful as the acts of the perpetrators themselves.

In comparison to her alleged inaction, I can give the perpetrators an atoms weight of respect in that they had some sort of passion, no matter how twisted, cruel, and perverse, they at least had something driving them. Nancy Pelosi's alleged inaction would have been driven solely by cowardly self-interest. The allegations some are making is that she kept quiet while knowing prisoners were being, or would be, tortured in violation of moral law, U.S. law, and international law, and practically ensuring similar treatment to our own soldiers should they become prisoners. If the worst of the allegations are true, she allowed all that to happen, made no effort to stop it or blow the whistle, rather than risk damage to her political career.

IF, IF, all that is true, and whether or not that is a crime, to me she would be disgrace as a human being. Especially considering her position of power and leadership. It's one thing if a soldier is a self-serving coward, quite another if a general is self-serving coward.

I suspect the worst and hope for the best. None of us has anything at all to gain by these allegations turning out to be true.

[The Magistrate]

152. As A Matter Of Practical Fact, Sir

Since the signing of the Armistice ending the Great War, the United States has engaged in war exclusively with powers who routinely tortured and abused prisoners of war in their custody. The 'licenses torture of our soldiers' argument has a nice ring, but really very little weight.

Your statement that you have more respect for the torturers in the Bush administration than for Speaker Pelosi is noted, and deserves some highlight in assessing the weight it is proper to give your comments on this question.

[sammythecat]

182. delete--wrong spot

[Two Americas]

184. excellent point

"The German soldier clearly had a preference when it came to who they wished to STOP fighting and surrender to."

I still can't believe that we are debating torture here with fellow Democrats, as though there were two "sides" to consider.


...

[The Magistrate]

189. Who Do You Find Here Arguing In Favor Of Torture, Sir?

[Creideiki]

233. "I still can't believe that we are debating torture here with fellow Democrats"

Pssst...We're not.

[sammythecat]

186. Ok, for the sake of argument,

let's say American treatment of prisoners has "little weight" in affecting how enemies might treat American prisoners. Removing the offending phrase leaves us with this: "The allegations some are making is that she kept quiet while knowing prisoners were being, or would be, tortured in violation of moral law, U.S. law, and international law." I'll just let that stand as is without any comment since it's not what you addressed in your comments.

Two things to consider about what you said in the first paragraph. One is that whatever, if any, importance you attach to the idea of America having a reputation for treating prisoners in a humane fashion, I want to state that it's a matter of huge importance to me. There's a whole slew of things in this country that are wrong and unfair, but I still like to think that we are a country that is at least striving toward being a nation that stands for what's right. Instituting, condoning, or allowing, torture and abuse of prisoners has NO place in a country worthy of admiration. The worse the enemy, the higher should be the contrast. The lower the contrast, the harder it is to distinguish between the two.

The second thing is the more practical benefit of humane treatment of POW's that can be found in accounts of the fighting in the last months of WWII. The German soldier clearly had a preference when it came to who they wished to STOP fighting and surrender to. The fighting on the eastern front between the Germans and the Soviets was so intensely savage and violent in large part because both sides considered surrender as an almost certain death sentence. And for good reason, both sides treated prisoners brutally. Immediate execution was not the worst they could suffer. At the end of the war, when the eastern and western fronts were coming together in Germany, there are many accounts of German units retreating from the Soviets and purposely engaging the Americans in order to surrender to them. The war was lost, and surrender to the Americans at least meant they had a pretty good chance of surviving the whole damn thing. The Americans didn't have to fight an enemy willing to fight to the death rather than surrender. The Soviets did, and paid dearly for it.

As to your last sentence where you said I have more respect for the torturers of the Bush administration than for Speaker Pelosi, and that fact deserves some highlight in assessing the weight proper to give my comments on this question. May I stress that we are talking about respect here, and not punishment. I said, "In comparison to her alleged inaction, I can give the perpetrators an atoms weight of respect in that they had some sort of passion, no matter how twisted, cruel, and perverse, they at least had something driving them. Nancy Pelosi's alleged inaction would have been driven solely by cowardly self-interest." The weight of an atom more respect. Yes, I do. For the reasons I stated. Also, straight-up evil usually has direction, and a goal. You know where it's coming from, you know where it wants to go and what it wants. You might have a chance set yourself to deal with it. Self-serving moral cowards however, hurt you with betrayal. And usually when they're counted on the most, when their betrayal destroys much more than just your trust in them.

One last thing I want to note is that I made an earnest effort to use the words "if", "alleged", and "allege" as often as I could appropriately. If Pelosi is innocent of any kind of complicity or morally reprehensible inaction, then I will be happy and relieved. Why would I not? Having said that, I'll now say that this is not at all a Democrat/Republican thing with me. It's way, way, more important than that to me. Whoever has been involved in this ignominy should be held accountable for their role. If that means prison, then send them to prison. If it means shame and disgrace, then so be it.

[The Magistrate]

188. You Are Quite Correct About The Benefts Of Treating Prisoners Well, Sir

That is a powerful argument, on wholly pragmatic grounds, against the Bush administration's actions, quite apart from legal considerations, or even moral ones.

Unfortunately, we must part company on the rest of your presentation here. The person who actively commits the crime is worse, and deserves no respect.

[sammythecat]

187. (sigh) delete again

[Two Americas]

183. not as though it will go away

It is not as though this will merely disappear and have no effect, and it is also not as though there is any harm in asking the questions that are being asked and finding out.

We have been down this path already, hoping to "look forward" and "move on" after the Nixon imperial presidency and after the excesses of the Reagan administration. It is not possible, because that crowd comes back to haunt us again and again, wiser and more determined each time.

It surprises me the number of people here who are recommending that we make this same mistake again. Of course Obama is going to talk reconciliation, as he i a politicians and is going to be cautious. However, people should not use that as cover and say that they are "supporting Obama" when they try to shut down discussion about this and attack people who are speaking out. That does Obama no favors. If there is public demand for taking an aggressive stance against the malefactors, he will, and we build public demand by speaking out, not by being "loyal" in a very narrow "rah rah team blue" partisan way.



...

[The Magistrate]

191. That Public Demand, Sir, Will Not Be Built Saying "I would also argue that Pelosi's crime is worse"

It needs to be a public demand for prosecution of the actual criminals, the men and wome in the Bush administrtaion who conceived, planned, and carried out the policy of torturing prisoner in U.S. custody.

[Two Americas]

196. give that up

I adequately explained exactly what I meant. Your argument is pretty weak if all you can do is find a minor flaw in mine and harp and harp and harp on it. Once I used the word "crime" in regards to Pelosi, that gave you an "out" and you stopped trying to defend your assertions or refute my argument. You may get some people here to fall for that - mostly because as fellow Democrats they are inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt - or you may think that you are saving face, but it is still an extremely weak line of argument. We cannot afford that sort of weakness, and we should not be promoting weak arguments and sloppy thinking and trying to get people here to believe that they are of any value whatsoever. People leave here and encounter right wing arguments every day. That is where the battle lines are, not in this thread over the picayune item you are grasping onto. We need to be giving them ideas that are powerful and useful, not petty little pout-downs that only have meaning to 1% of the population,m if that. Mist people here are not even interested in them.

I think you are wrong, and I am anxious to test that. I think that it WILL be valuable in turning people away from the right wing to say that. I am going to use it and report back.

"Democrats may have been standing by while the right wing promotes torture." I think that any person hearing that will understand exactly what I mean, and that it will do far more damage to the image of the perpetrators than to the complicit bystanders - of course. Obviously. Let's quit with this silliness. This issue is far too important for you to be playing these talking points games over.

There is no possible way to talk to people about the crimes of the Republicans without this question arising - "where were the Democrats?" No possible way.

The approach you are demanding from everyone can only hurt the party, and is condescending and contemptuous of the everyday people. There is no way that a "Dems can do no wrong" approach works with anyone, and by "works" I mean turn people away from the right wing. Lifetime dedicated and committed Dems here resent that approach when you use it on them, and only put up with it because they ARE loyal to the party and feel like they have to make an effort to accommodate people who express this shallow and rigid partisanship. If people here - who are somewhat obligated to put up with it - resent it, just imagine how people feel who have no particular loyalty to the party and who are therefore under no obligation to debate this with you.


...

[omega minimo]

198. "condescending/contemptuous of everyday people" who know accountability was Off The Table by decree

The Democratic Speakers first instruction in 2006.

And why?

"There is no possible way to talk to people about the crimes of the Republicans without this question arising - "where were the Democrats?" No possible way."

Precisely.

That seems to be why The Mag is spinning this this way. To avoid the unavoidable.

[Two Americas]

199. the people are not stupid

They may be deceived, they may be ignorant. But in many ways they are smarter than the activists, and certainly more grounded in reality. I think for some being a liberal is all about being able to look down on their presumed inferiors. Unfortunately, they are the dominant voices in modern liberalism, and their contempt and arrogance is all that many people hear as an alternative to the right wing narrative. They then do not so much support the right wing agenda as they do reject the arrogant and condescending liberals.

Our discussion is subordinate to the ego needs of the few and the protection of their privileges and social status, which is subordinate to a very narrow partisanship, which is subordinate to the careers of politicians, which is subordinate to the favors and money of the wealthy few. The people can see through this, and that is why they think of modern liberalism as hypocritical, as one group of pampered princes wrestling with another for control. The people do not think they have a dog in that fight, because they don't. Even most of the people here - educated, professional, relatively upscale and disproportionately from the upper 10% income bracket, gentrified and aristocratic - don't have much of a dog in the partisan political circus.


...

[omega minimo]

201. protection of their privileges and social status, which is subordinate to a very narrow partisanship

"protection of their privileges and social status, which is subordinate to a very narrow partisanship"


a revealing thread...................... :hi:

[The Magistrate]

210. You Have Explained Nothing, Sir, But Simply Stood By The Statement

Your position is that the inaction of Democrats in Congress was a worse crime than the action of the Bush administration in torturing prisoners in custody. It does not save you to claim you did not mean crime in any legal sense, which is the only real meaning the term has, because in trying to shift to a claim you meant instead a greater moral offense, you are still claiming that the greatest wrong is committed by someone other than those who actually, by their own personal acts, directly inflict degrading suffering on another human being, and this is not only nonesense, it is active mockery of the very concept of responsible moral agency. Further, since persons who appeal past criminal law to moral law always conceive the latter to be a higher law, that it is worse to violate, you make clear that you are elevating the crime you allege against Democrats in Congress to a transcendental quality, by compare to which the mere legal crime of dangling a man by his wrists for a week is a trifle. It is simply impossible for an English-speaking person to take away from your comments any meaning but that you consider the behavior of the Bush administration in torturing prisoners in custody to be a lesser evil than inaction by Democrats in Congress, and you really ought to own up forthrightly to that, rather than continue all these wiggles and wriggles off the point. Because they are not going to get you off the impaling pin, but only press it in deeper.

To maintain that claiming Democrats in Congress committed worse crimes than the Bush administration will be an effective means of rallying the public to demand prosecution of criminals in the Bush administration by a Democratic administration is risible. It simply cannot be taken seriously. The fact that it closely parallels a line of argument being pressed by reasonably competent persons on the right seeking to prevent the prosecution of Bush administration officials, or limit the scope of such prosecutions, or mitigate the consequences to the right of such prosecutions, cannot have escaped you, as it cannot have escaped anyone with a modicum of political engagement. But evidently, the fact that you are arguing along a line chosen as an effective defense by the very persons you claim to be rallying popular support against does not give you pause. It ought to.

But the richest item on the plate is your maintaining that persons who claim Democrats in Congress committed worse crimes than the Bush administration are the 'real' Democrats here, and that they grudgingly and with much resentment condescend to make room in the Party for interlopers such as myself who maintain that crimes of the Bush administration ought to be the focus of popular anger. What a world you live in, Sir, where the mark of life-long commitment and dedication and loyalty to a political body is disparraging its elected leadership as criminals of the highest order, and forthright denunciation of crimes by the opponents of that political body is the mark of an interloper who is tolerated only grudgingly and with much resentment on its fringes!

[omega minimo]

218. Speaking of "wiggly," those are three most remarkable and potentially damaging misrepresentations

all hinging on the one, which Two Americas has addressed several times and yet you continue to insist what the "position" being "maintained" is. In this latest, most elaborate projection of Two Americas supposed "position," it might convince anyone who knew no better. With what assurance you maintain what someone else supposedly "maintains"!!

You have cobbled together the position, wrapped it around another DUer and maintained it.

Previously you mentioned "Democrats working together." This sort of treatment does not support that goal.

My "position" that I have "maintained" that this sort of strongarming of discussion is not good for Democrats or DU, stands.

It alienates those who may have something to contribute that don't fit into your verbal straitjacket.

Thank you.

[The Magistrate]

223. He Has Not, Sir, Addressed His Statement "I would also argue that Pelosi's crime is worse' At All

He has simply said he does not like it having fed back to him by someone who takes his statements seriously, because he recognizes the hole it puts him in on a board where support for Democrats is supposed to be the norm, and that he did not mean 'legal' crime, only metaphoric or moral crime, though of course 'moral' crime violates a higher law than that of the state, and is even a worse offense to those who take it seriously. These, Sir, are wiggles and wriggles. He has also maintained that accusing Speaker Pelosi of major crimes is somehow an essential element of being a committed and dedictaed Democrat. That is past merely amusing.

What this boils down to, Sir, is very clear. Some persons are aligning themselves with the current argument of the right against prosecuting the war crimes of the Bush adminstration, namely that Democrats are really just as responsible, and going them one better to claim Democrats are even more responsible. Persons who do this have no grounds upon which to claim to be committed and dedicated Democrats, let alone loyal Democrats, and none whatever from which to claim persons who focus their attacks on the Bush administration are harming the Party.

[Two Americas]

226. TM - sure I have

But that is OK. I welcome the opportunity to talk about it. The more you explain your position, the more clear the issues involved here will become to the members reading this thread.

I am not defending or promoting whatever it is that Republicans may be saying, so please stop trying to imply that I am. Thanks in advance.

I am it wiggling nor wriggling, nor am I going anywhere. The more you pursue this, the more depth we can get into and the more interesting and revealing the discussion will be. I welcome your remarks, as they are a perfect illustration of something that I see as a grave threat to the future success of the party and I think this needs to be discussed and considered.

I utterly reject your litmus test for who is and who is not a dedicated and committed Democrat, and object to your continual implications that those who disagree with you are disloyal in some way. I do not think that being a talking points warrior here is what this is about. I am trying to move this discussion away from that and over to talking about what actually works in the real world to move people away from the right wing and get them to vote Democratic, from 40 years of extensive first hand experience - and more importantly, how to advance the principles and ideals we honor once we do get Democrats elected. You instead want to argue about what the proper talking points we should be using are. I say that is weak and counter-productive.



...

[omega minimo]

235. You know he has, several times. The more you "boil it down," the more extreme

the accusatory misrepresentations, which Two Americas is apparently willing to correct.

This thread has been most enlightening. Funny, while I'm thinking how "wiggly" your maneuvers are, you accuse Two Americas of being "wiggly."

In your post above, as I think how you're "boiling it down" to fit your catapult, next you say "What this boils down to......"

What this boils down to is a tar baby that Two Americas won't hug, just as he refuesed to embrace the strawmen.

It appears your argument was all ready to go and someone walked smack into the web, to be wiggled and wriggled and wrapped up in silky threads of ""Nonsense!" .......... a cocoon of cotton candy concern accusing the prey of all manner of things; muffling them with phrases stuffed in place of what they actually said and/or meant and attempted repeatedly to clarify.

Damn prey!! Stop w(r)iggling!!! Such a perfect web. See how it sparkles with DU like diamonds in the light!!!!

And now, to move the cocoon toward the hole......

"...because he recognizes the hole it puts him in on a board where support for Democrats is supposed to be the norm..."

Ah, better now.

But the silk has torn and Two Americas' words emerge from the darkness:

"As for the rest of your post, I resent and take exception to your attempts at smearing any critics of Democratic party politicians as being in league with Republicans. Shame on you for that."

[Two Americas]

224. ROFL

I see you ignored my advice to give this up. So be it.

One more time. The word "crime" has more than one meaning, and from the context I think it should have been clear how I used the word. But I have explained how I used the word in case there was any confusion. (I don't think anyone including you, is actually confused here.)

Yes, in criminal law "crime" has this meaning:

- (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act) "a long record of crimes"

But the word is also commonly used in another way:

- an evil act not necessarily punishable by law - "crimes of the heart"

As for the "worse crime" remark I made, that is a common usage as well. When good people stand by and do nothing, that is "worse" because it opens the door to all sports of evil, makes any evil possible, because we expect better from good people, and because we have a responsibility to police our own.

As in my example earlier, of course arsonists are "worse" than inept fire fighters in a strictly legalistic and simple-minded sense. So what? Of course arsonists need to be apprehended. But if fire fighters refuse to answer fire alarms, refuse to investigate and prosecute arsonists, then YES it is entirely appropriate to say that they are WORSE than any arsonist, since they are betraying our trust and making us vulnerable to arsonists perpetually and are preventing us from protecting ourselves from the arsonists.

Would you seriously argue that we should ignore the fact that our fire fighters are failing, are not putting out fires, are not investigating and apprehending arsonists - should that be the case - because we need to solely focus on the arsonists because the arsonists are "worse" than the inept fire fighters? Absurd.

Thank you for the opportunity to express this concept again for the benefit of the other readers.

As for the rest of your post, I resent and take exception to your attempts at smearing any critics of Democratic party politicians as being in league with Republicans. Shame on you for that.


...

[sammythecat]

216. to Two Americas

I have to use your name in the heading because, for some reason, it's become impossible in this thread to tell who is responding to who without doing some sort of forensics on each reply.

I just wanted to say that I like this:

"The approach you are demanding from everyone can only hurt the party, and is condescending and contemptuous of the everyday people. There is no way that a "Dems can do no wrong" approach works with anyone, and by "works" I mean turn people away from the right wing. Lifetime dedicated and committed Dems here resent that approach when you use it on them, and only put up with it because they ARE loyal to the party and feel like they have to make an effort to accommodate people who express this shallow and rigid partisanship. If people here - who are somewhat obligated to put up with it - resent it, just imagine how people feel who have no particular loyalty to the party and who are therefore under no obligation to debate this with you."

I wish some others who are on this board but not in this thread would read that, and CONSIDER it. It seems consideration of what one has read is too often a rarity around here.

"Rigid partisanship" is no virtue. I have always been a hardcore Democrat and I always will be. But I will never be a rigid partisan in that I will accept or defend unscrupulous behavior by anyone simply because they are a Democrat. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and there are no exceptions. I AM rigid about that, and will remain so. "My _____, right or wrong"... there is no possible word or name that can be placed in the blank that would make that phrase any less repulsive to me.

[Two Americas]

221. sammythecat -

We have exceeded the maximum length for a subthread, so it is just stacking all new posts one under the other.

40 years I have worked for Democratic party candidates, and not merely at election time, at the local, state and national level, yet I come here and should I be interested in knowing if Democrats have been complicit in crimes by right wingers I am treated as though I were a traitor. I have always worked in the Republican districts - how else are we going to win elections if we don't take the fight there? - and in the poor neighborhoods getting out the vote and listening to people's fears and worries. Every election cycle, I commit to personally converting 100 Republican voters to at least not vote for the Republican candidate - face to face, one on one.

No one can tell me that "rah rah team blue, we are the superior people, and no one but ignorant people vote Republican, and Dems can do no wrong" works. It works here, if by "works" we mean it makes people feel better about themselves, gives them a mob to hide in and feel nice and comfy and "like minded," gives them an excuse to express hatred and bigotry and get away with it, and if we mean works to shut down discussion and suppress dissent.

There is absolutely nothing I ever say here that I have not said for years directly to Dem politicians and staff, from my own Rep. John Conyers, to David Bonier, Soapy Williams, Phil Hart, RFK, Jesse Jackson, Carl and Sander Levin, Jerry Brown, Coleman Young, Jim Blanchard, Udall, Mondale, Stabenow, Granholm, Dingel, Gary Hart, Kucinich, and many, many others. They have always welcomed what I have to say, and so do the thousands of voters I have spoken with and to over the years. Yet here, I run into fanatical resistance. It is only a few who lead this resistance, less than 10% of the membership here, but they bully and dominate and control the discussion.


...

[pecwae]

237. ...

:thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

78. "evil triumphs when good people do nothing" ... BINGO!

And that's the main point here. Pelosi, et. al., are acting "as pure as the driven snow" instead of the cowards that they proved themselves to be. A little HUMILITY on their part would go a long way.

Yes, OUR Party deserves to be censored and leaders replaced when THE EVIDENCE shows that they repetitively, on the difficult moral issues, have "feet of clay."

No, Pelosi, et. al. are not guilty of WAR CRIMES but they are guilty of MORAL LAPSES as they choose "their careers" over "service to Our Constitution."

Therefore, as thoughtful Democrats, we should do everything legally to voice our support for MORE COURAGEOUS and MORALLY SOUND DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATION in Congress.

May She and Harry Reid be removed from Congressional Leadership Positions and PROMPTLY voted out of office during their next Democratic Primary ... with extreme prejudice. :thumbsup:

Our beloved party should have zero patience for MORAL COWARDS. :nuke:

[The Magistrate]

82. No, Ma'am, Evil Triumphs When It Has At Its Disposal Sufficient Force To Do So

Persons who do not have sufficient power to oppose it effectively are simply its victims.

[ShortnFiery]

86. Hello!?! Our Democratic Leaders certainly did have the means to throw a wrench in the whole process.

The WORLD Community protested the invasion of Iraq, but our "leaders" cowered from expressing THE MORAL COURAGE to stand up to them.

The People would have had their backs IF they would have stood up and said, NO INVASION. But they remained silent ... and they remained silent on so many things that are against Our Constitution.

I love our party, but we need LEADERS who serve THE COUNTRY FIRST and their careers aspirations as a far second.

I'm disgusted with both Reid and Pelosi but that does NOT make me a bad democrat. Only a REALIST who knows that they have NOT served their Constituents.

[The Magistrate]

90. No, Ma'am, In The Existing Political Climate They Had No Such Power

You have made it clear here for a long time you detest the popular leadership of the Democratic Party, and so it is hardly a surprise to see you maintain it is Democrats who are responsible for the crimes of the Bush administration yet again.

[Two Americas]

99. another excuse

It is always the case that people can say that they have less power than would be ideal. Given what power they did have, did they do all that they could to stop his? That is the question.


...

[The Magistrate]

104. People, Sir, Who Do Not Possess The Power To Stop A Thing Are Not Responsible For Its Execution

If what it was possible for them to do was clearly insufficient to achieve the desired end, then that is an end of it. To pitch a fight you will lose is simple foolishness.

[Two Americas]

177. ok

That is not the question, though, as I already explained. Did they do all they could do - given whatever power and influence they had. That is the question.


...

[omega minimo]

193. Pelosi's able to stop Accountability by taking impeachment Off The Table, giving Bushco carteblanche

....that involves responsibility for their actions, for not stopping their crimes at the time. You want to argue levels or degrees? Value some, ignore others? Doesn't change the fact.

:thumbsdown:

[ShortnFiery]

105. Yet, NOW, when they have a prime opportunity to "express regret" they act "self-righteous"

No, that's not the Democratic Leaders whom I'm willing to follow.

As I said before, a little HUMILITY and REGRET would have went a long way.

No, they are not Criminals but IMO, very close to Jackals and Scavengers ... I don't want THEM (Pelosi and Reid) as our party leaders.

[The Magistrate]

109. If, Ma'am, You Had Not Been Calling Leading Democrats "Jackals And Scavengers' For Years

You present high dudgeon might have a tad more impact....

[Two Americas]

95. both are true

Both are true, of course.

We fight for what is right whether we think we can win or not. This discussion is about fighting for hat is right. No one is criticizing Pelosi or other Dems for doing all they possibly could and then failing. We are asking whether or not they did all that they could. Perhaps they would have failed anyway, perhaps they had insufficient power as you are now arguing, but we elect them to fight as hard as they can do we not?

If Pelosi did in fact know what was being planned or done, did she do all that she could to stop it? That is the question, not had she tried whether or not would she have succeeded. Did she try?


...

[The Magistrate]

101. No, Sir: One Fights When One Can Prevail, And Does Not When Defeat Is Likely

The first duty of a commander is to preserve the force intact.

The beginning of wisdom in conflict is an accurate appreciation of what ends can be achieved with the means at one's disposal.

[Two Americas]

103. keeping our powder dry

Yes we are all familiar with that argument. I don't think you have made your case that it applies here.

[The Magistrate]

106. More Of the Varrus School Than the Fabian, Sir, Eh?

[Two Americas]

153. neither

Depends upon the circumstances and the issue, does it not?

[omega minimo]

126. Perhaps democracy was Off The Table

"f Pelosi did in fact know what was being planned or done, did she do all that she could to stop it? That is the question, not had she tried whether or not would she have succeeded. Did she try?"



That last bit of strategery is the rationale used for not investigating and impeaching these criminals while they were in (unelected) office.

And here we are.

[HughMoran]

197. Typical weasely sleazy word parsing on your part

I can't ever take your arguments seriously.

[Two Americas]

227. that is fine

I am writing for the benefit of others, not you. I have no expectations or desire to persuade you. My goal is to draw you out, give you an opportunity to make your best argument in a calm and thoughtful environment, and then let the readers decide and make up their own minds. (I think you are responding to me here, not sure.)

No need for insults, though, is there?


...

[omega minimo]

57. The complicit committed violations of their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution

You are "clouding the issue" of complicity. The Legislative Branch' oversight responsibility was never "off the table."

[The Magistrate]

62. Nonesense, Sir

They may not have acted in accordance with your feelings concerning what that requires, but that is nothing that establishes criminal culpability under law. My only concern here is to see prosecution of the persons who committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in custody, and nothing else is of the slightest interest to me, in comparison with that desire.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[omega minimo]

91. Ma'am, feelings have nothing to do with Constitutional requirements and your continuous shifiting

to your chosen theme to control the thread has blinded you here.


"My only concern here is to see prosecution of the persons who committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in custody, and nothing else is of the slightest interest to me, in comparison with that desire."


Which is why you overlook that there are other aspects of concern and complicity, that may not fit your verbal straitjacket for others' replies.

These concerns involve the structure and integrity of the three branches.

The actions of those with oversight and culpability have redefined our nation.

These concerns are relevant to how criticism and investigations go forward.

To discuss this openly is not an attack on Democrats.

[The Magistrate]

100. No, Sir, they Do Not

That is why your feelings in regard to what that oath mandates make no impression.

Persons who are interested in seeing the crime of torture of prisoners in custody by the Bush administration will keep the focus tightly on the persons who actually committed those crimes.

[ShortnFiery]

112. There have been numerous examples where our democratic leadership has failed us.

IF they don't start listening to the people, may they be promptly voted out of office in their next Primaries.

The American People have had quite enough. Especially us Democrats.

Our leaders may not be GHOULS but they are showing also that "far too many" have ZERO moral courage.

They need to be replaced by higher quality Democrats.

That's not Anti-Democratic Party, that's sound judgment.

[The Magistrate]

119. You Seem To Imagine, Ma'am, Your View Prevails Among The Democratic Party Primary Electorate

It does not. And the tone of attack you press would, if engaged in generally, would only increase the number of voters within that demographic who actively oppose the ends you desire.

[Two Americas]

180. that means nothing

Politics is always a matter of several small factions competing for the attention of the public. Therefore, dismissing people's opinions because they are only representative of a small number of people, or a fringe, is not useful. Those arguing party loyalty above all are a very small faction, even here, and even smaller in the general public, for example. That small faction casts a large shadow because they are aligned with power and wealth and so dominate the media, and also because it is always easier to defend the existing conditions than it is to call for something new or different, and it is always easier to tear things down than it is to build things.


I have 40 years of very extensive direct experience that contradicts this statement - "the tone of attack you press would, if engaged in generally, would only increase the number of voters within that demographic who actively oppose the ends you desire." I always work with non-voters and with Republican voting people during the campaigns. After all, those are the votes we need. Several of us in the Midwest farming community, for example, put together a program to turn rural precincts blue during the last midterm election campaigns with spectacular success. When party activists from suburbia asked what they could do to help, we said "stay away" because there is nothing that turns people off faster or more thoroughly than rah rah true blue Dem partisanship.

I am absolutely certain that the exact opposite of what you say here is true, and love to demonstrate that to people - anytime, anywhere. The fastest way to get people to question the right wing is to show a willingness to criticize the Dems as appropriate. Otherwise, people think "of course you hate Bush - you are a true believer in the Democratic party." The challenges the country faces are so much more serious than the partisan fray would suggest that it is an obscenity in my opinion to shoehorn everything down into red team versus blue team, and the people in the general public are not stupid or naive (contrary to what people often express here with contempt and condescension) and they know this.

When we have a willingness to tell the truth about the Democratic party and the Democratic party politicians, people are much more likely to listen to our criticism of the right wing. This is the way to gain votes for the Democrats, and that is what I have done for 40 years. I would be happy to deminsrate this in real life, and have often compared the two approaches - "Dems can do no wrong" and "both paries suck, but the right wing is worse." The second approach gets votes for the Demicrats, the second dos not.

The only alternative to being willing to criticize Dems is to be a cheerleader and true believer in order to satisfy a self-centered need to be right, to identify with the winning team, at the expense of electoral success let alone the successful advancement of the principles and ideals which are the entire reason that we are Democrats in the first place. I think too many here are more committed to partisanship, to identification with the team, to being self-righteous and tpo fancy themselves superior to others then they are to any principles and ideals and to the actual success of the party.

I must strongly disagree with the approach you are implicitly recommending here, and warn everyone who is reading this away from that thinking. The future if the party and the country depends upon this, and what you are suggesting will allow the right wing back into power should your approach prevail.



...

[omega minimo]

127. Ma'am, the skill with which you evade points, dismiss "lessers" and justify a Litmus Test is

astonishing.

[The Magistrate]

131. You Are Too Kind, Sir....

[omega minimo]

134. Kindness is a virtue.

Litmus is a mistake.

[The Magistrate]

137. Litmus, Sir, Discerns Between The Acid And The Base

[omega minimo]

142. Your acid is damaging the base.

[The Magistrate]

145. So You Feel The Base Of The Party, Sir, Considers Our Leaders Bear The Bush Administration's Guilt?

That is a view that is false to fact. Remember that the 'base' of a political party are those persons who can be counted on to support it loyally....

[omega minimo]

156. A Strawman, Ma'am?!! Shocking!! I saw you try to use it elsewhere, too...........

"Loyally" is NOT "lockstep."

[The Magistrate]

159. Oh, the Dreaded Lockstep, Sir! Heavens Forfend Democrats Should Actually Work Together....

Why, that would be as bad as the left acting as a bloc in a Popular Front!

[omega minimo]

165. Another Strawman. Sad. Ma'am really thinks this is good for Democrats or DU?

:wow:

[Two Americas]

113. right

They may have violated their oaths of office. That is what we are discussing. Among other possible facets of this. "Failing to so all that they could have to protect the law and the Constitution." We can discus that possibility and that does not mean we are letting the Bush officials off the hook, does not mean we have an agenda to tear down the party, and does not mean we are saying that any Dems should be prosecuted criminally.

Why does your "desire" mean others cannot discus other issues? You have failed to support your assertion that talking about complicity by Dems means that Bush officials are being given a pass.


...

[The Magistrate]

122. Nonesense, Sir: No One Has Violated An Oath Of Office

Persons have not acted as you imagine you would were you in their place; that is all that statement means.

[omega minimo]

130. Mere Noise.

:thumbsdown:

[The Magistrate]

133. Thought That Was One Of Mine There, For a Moment, Sir....

"You will not rise to the occasion; you will default to your level of training."

[omega minimo]

135. What?

:evilgrin: "Waste not, want not"

[Two Americas]

185. I said "may"

Here is said oath:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."


You brought up the oath, in any case, if I remember.


...

[omega minimo]

132. Open investigations would reveal complicity and/or coercion

What pressures were these leaders under in justifying not upholding the Rule of Law and their sworn duties?

Discovering that can only be good for the nation and for Dems, like lancing that nasty boil.

The purported notion that Dems can't or shouldn't hold discussion or can't handle "seeing how the sausage is made," is more suspect than considering the possibilities is.

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

108. Yes, and the best example that will HAUNT justice for years to come is Reid's failure to FILIBUSTER

Alito.

Harry Reid couldn't lead a cub scout camp much less the entire democratic representation of our Senate. :thumbsdown:

[The Magistrate]

110. Reid Is No Favorite Of Mine, Ma'am

He has made a number of poor choices, in my view.

[ShortnFiery]

116. We concur. It's beyond time for our "illustrious" Senate to join us Mere Mortal Democrats who

comprise "the chattering classes" of the unwashed masses, i.e., non-investor class Americans.

Particularly - far too many of our Senate Democrats are, IMO, sorely out of touch with the beliefs of the Average American Democrat.

[The Magistrate]

121. At This Point, Ma'am, The Chief Target Of The Left Should Be Nelson Of Nebraska

If it came to it, it would not trouble me to see him replaced by an openly declared Republican....

[bread_and_roses]

111. no, he/she is right on target. you seem to be arguing that one thing precludes another

which it does not. No one wants to see that fascistic illegitimate junta punished any more than I do, regardless of whether or not there is complicit guilt among the Democrats. But that doesn't mean I have to pretend that if there was complicity, it too was not vile and evil, weather or not the law defines it as a crime.

I have seen nothing - or very little - from most Democrats in Congress to make me think they have ethical standards one whit higher than most Republicans when it comes to money, militarism, or re-election. I don't know how one can review their votes over the past eight years and think anything else.

[The Magistrate]

117. In The Goal Of Moving Public Opinion, Ma'am, One Thing Does Preclude The Other

If one desires the public to support prosecution of members of the Bush administration for the war crime of torturing prisoners in custody, that is where the focus has to be kept. Charges others 'are complicit' simply distract attention and diffuse concentration. As the saw goes: 'If everyone is to blame, nobody is to blame."

[bread_and_roses]

139. Pretending that the complicity of those with power and privilege is harmless simply sets the stage

for the next incident. The Democrats have "the bully pulpit" now and could do far more than they are to assure that the public is fully informed and that all who had a part in this receive justice. That they are not, and instead weaseling around makes them look like opportunistic knaves, and I vehemently disagree that it will ever promote justice for the major criminals. You may disagree as much as you wish; I believe history is on my side, and have had my say, I don't intend to go on about it.

And you are, of course, quite free to address me in any way you wish, but I find being addressed as "ma'am" extremely distasteful. It is at once pretentious and belittling, of which I am sure you are quite aware.

[omega minimo]

244. "........extremely distasteful. It is at once pretentious and belittling......"

[omega minimo]

141. Nonsense, Ma'am. Open investigations provide focus. Why "distract" and "diffuse" from complicity?

[The Magistrate]

146. Any Political Line Meant To Move A Large Mass Of People, Sir, Must Be Simple

The larger the number who must be moved to agree, the simpler it must be kept.

"One war at a time is about all that we can handle."

[omega minimo]

157. Ma'am, your rigidity seems bound to an assumption that We The People are all idiots

and that would include the "base."

Yes, remember Watergate? We need investigations and hearings and open airing of facts and evidence and witnesses, NOT a "focus" grouped sheeple led to a conclusion regarding crimes ahead of time.


"The benefit of focus on a legal standard is that it is defined with a reasonable degree of exactness and some attempt at objectivity, so that persons can reach agreement on whether an act is or is not a crime whatever their view concerning whether or not it is or is not a moral or decently human action."

[The Magistrate]

160. The Art Of Moving Public Opinion Is What It Is, Sir, Your Tastes Notwithstanding

"Play it as it lays."

[omega minimo]

164. "Feelings" "Tastes" "Morals" such delicately dismissive ad hominems

[Two Americas]

138. yes

No doubt there are some who are trying to spin the blame away from Republicans and onto Democrats. I am sure that Republican politicians are trying to do that. I don't ever watch MSM if I can help it, but they may well be saying "the Democrats are being attacked from both the right and the left" blah blah, which then leads people who watch that idiocy to think that critics from the Left are as much a danger as the right wing is.

I think that most of the arguments here are not so much about political opinions, as they are between those who do and those who do not watch the MSM political coverage and take it seriously. That makes it a clash of alternate realities, not of political opinions.

The theme repeated over and over by MSM pundits goes something like this -

"We are reporting about the most important things involving politics, so what you hear here is a good basis for your political thinking. All politics that any reasonable and informed person need consider are circumscribed by what politicians in the two political parties are doing and saying, and anything else is 'impractical' or 'unrealistic.' All people at all times are to be seen as acting in their own personal self-interest, and have an agenda that can be detected, so we should view everything with an air of cynicism and skepticism. Nothing that is not done in immediate self-interest is about personal beliefs, which we all have. Once we know a person's personal agenda or their beliefs, we know all we need to know about them and then we merely choose who we like and then defend those we like and attack those we do not, as though we had made a consumer choice and are now defending the brand we are loyal to. Anything that matters hinges on partisan politics and elections, since 'nothing can be done' if your team is 'not in office.' Anything that seems to give partisan advantage, then, is to be seen as good, and anything that could impede partisan advantage is bad. It is all to be seen as team blue versus team red - that is reality. People who are passionate about anything should be viewed with extreme suspicion, since it could be a sign that they are a loser or a misfit."

The mindset that induces in people is then applied to each and every political subject, so we hear the exact same arguments used against any critics or defenders, and the exact same arguments used in defending team blue, no matter what we are discussing. This serves to shut down any thoughtful discussion, any discussion that is any deeper than discussions people have about their favorite sports team, or their favorite consumer products.



...

[The Magistrate]

147. Any Attempt At Influencing Public Opinion On a Large Scale, Sir

Must necessarily reach precisely those people who do follow the medium you so disdain. Actually, much of the argument here is between people who bring to politics the sensibilities of the 'indie music' scene, in which whatever reaches a wide audience is by definition an inferior act which has sold out, and is to be despised heartily on that account, and persons who understand that politics in a democracy is about building the widest possible sense of group identity within the country's voting public, and fostering its loyalty, both mutually among rank and file members, and vertically between the rank and file and the leadership.

[omega minimo]

162. Hogwash

#1. Your "focus" on "influencing public opinion." More manipulation. The Democratic Party does not need to stoop to that, does it?!!!!! Honestly.
Investigate and let the public decide based on facts and evidence, as they witness, perhaps for the first time in their lives, a return to the Rule of Law and Constitutional integrity.

"Actually, much of the argument here is between people who bring to politics the sensibilities of the 'indie music' scene, in which whatever reaches a wide audience is by definition an inferior act which has sold out, and is to be despised heartily on that account, and persons who understand that politics in a democracy is about building the widest possible sense of group identity within the country's voting public, and fostering its loyalty, both mutually among rank and file members, and vertically between the rank and file and the leadership."

#2. That's deceptive and insulting and even worse if you actually realize how much it is so.

"Back in the day" when the country had "soul" and pre-Reagan/Limbaugh/Rove/Luntz brainwashing and marketing techniques, before corporate "music" demographics and cynically "obvious" views of the clueless public, such as you present, there was general public awareness of civics, the Constitution and the Rule of Law. As well as the RESPONSIBILITIES shared by leaders and the people to the nation. THERE'S your "mutual" and "vertical."

THAT is what is being called for here, not some tattooed trendy game of "Pin the Tail on the Poseur." :evilfrown:


Can't get much more Classic or "Old School" than that. :thumbsup:

[The Magistrate]

163. You Know, Sir, At This Moment Dark Delights Of Far More Pleasure Than This Are Beckonning....

It has been a slice....

[omega minimo]

167. ... be careful Down the Rabbit Hole, Ma'am.................

[Two Americas]

173. I don't find that to be true

I think the influence of the MSM is vastly over-rated. People here take it far more seriously than the general public does. I think that the more educated and the more successful people are the more likely they are to take the MSM seriously and internalize the message.

I speak to hundreds of groups in real life outside of the circles that most of the people here are from. I don't hear MSM themes repeated the ay I do here, and I don't run into the resistance to my left wing ideas that I do here, and that is in Republican voting rural districts. What you are calling invalid because it is based on "the sensibilities of the 'indie music' scene" is the rule, not the exception out in the real world. I am not talking some theory here, but rather from experience and observation. The national political discussion for the most part goes on by word of mouth, and most people are not obsessed with MSM political analysis, as people are here.

In the real world, criticism of the Dems such as what Turley is saying here moves people away from right wing politics, and toward the Democratic party (by default of course). I speak from 40 years experience promoting the Democratic party and getting out the vote in poor neighborhoods, blue collar working class neighborhoods, and ethnic and minority communities. I can count on two hands the number of liberal activists I have ever seen in those communities over the years. The view from upscale suburbia and academia is quite different, granted, But that is not where elections are decided.

If people would get out there, and leave the bubble of "like minded" people, and were serious about winning elections as they claim to be (and why else be so obsessed with the fortunes of team blue?) they would no that ANY politician or party determined to enact single payer health care - for just one example - would never lose an election.



...

[JDPriestly]

230. Two Americas. The problem is that Congress did do something.

I previously agreed with you. But then I did some research. The fact is that the members of Congress who were opposed to the torture did act.

Here is the bill they passed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132572 /

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act

Here is the text of the bill that was passed.

TITLE X--MATTERS RELATING TO DETAINEES

. . . .

SEC. 1002. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) In General- No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

. . . .

SEC. 1003. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

. . . .
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term 'cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

And Bush reacted: He signed the bill, but he also signed a signing statement retaining the right to torture.

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/b ...

Yes, the congressional response was slow. But getting Congress to work on an issue is not easy. Look at what is happening on Single Payer.

Only a few members of Congress knew about this early on, and they were, like it or not, sworn to secrecy. The cost to them and to the country of their going public with this issue would have been enormous. In a sense, they would have been compounding Bush's abuse of his powers as a president with abuses of the limits on their own congressional powers. Congress can investigate and pass new laws. In this case they passed new laws.

Please not that this law was attached as an amendment to a military funding bill (good strategy) and that it is know as the Grammy-Levin-Kyle bill (two Republicans). Without the Republican support (in defiance of the president in a sense), no bill would have been passed. So our Democrats in Congress did a great job working to get the issue dealt with in the limits of the Constitution.

Prosecute citizen George W. Bush now.

My apologies for the fact that this is the third time today that I have posted this. Once in response to a post and once as a separate post. Unfortunately, no one responded to it when I posted it, so I am posting it as a tag to Pete's post, because everyone reads Pete's posts.

[Two Americas]

241. yes

I was talking to Levin's office about this at the time.

Some Democrats, in this case Carl Levin, did try to do something, yes.

From the Slate article:

Graham-Levin-Kyl is a bipartisan effort, sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., along with Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. If it passes, we will have both parties to thank for putting it on the record that the United States is a country that locks people up based on testimony obtained by torture that they don't know about and can't challenge. Contrast that with last week's unanimous decision by Britain's law lords, who ruled—in defiance of the government—that evidence obtained by torture may never be used in British courts. "The rejection of torture by the common law has a special iconic importance as the touchstone of a human and civilised legal system," one of the law lords wrote. The same cannot be said, apparently, for the laws of the United States.

[JDPriestly]

242. I agree that our law could be stronger, but then, I also remember

how Bush established a reign of terror in Congress in order to prevent oversight of his administration. The Democrats in Congress did well even to get this relatively weak bill passed. I'm just disappointed that Obama/Holder are not doing more to address the culpability of the leaders of the Bush administration. It's on their plate now. It's up to them to establish once and for all that we do not torture.

[Yupster]

20. I think Jimmy's the dog and Tommy's the cat

The dog's got that guilty look on his face.

[omega minimo]

59. Maybe Tommy ought to have taken the damn VASE OFF THE DAMN TABLE.

:bounce: :kick:

[montanacowboy]

5. Well if the shoe fits we need to wear it

If Democrats are guilty then they too must be investigated

Everyone who knew and kept silent should be investigated and I don't give a rat's ass if there is a D or an R behind their names

[The Magistrate]

9. Guilty Of What, Sir? All Criminal Liability In This Matter Rests With the Executive

Criminal liability is borne in this only by the leaders in the Executive who conceived and planned and ordered the commission of felonies, and the subordinates of the Executive who obey those orders. No one else bears a shred of responsibility.

[Two Americas]

228. glad you pushed this issue

Your point is well taken - that it is the actual law breakers who are criminally liable, and that this needs to be our main focus. I don't think we have any disagreement on that. I think that this thread is about a different subject, not in lieu of the subject you are discussing, but an interesting and important subject nevertheless.

What is the guilt, the "crime" in the non-legalistic sense of the word, of the official who stands by and refuses to pursue law-breakers? Certainly, a murderer is worse than a lazy or corrupt police officer, I suppose, and may face stiffer criminal penalties. But does not the official who fails to uphold the law, who fails to pursue criminals, cause more damage to society than the law breaker? After all, one official could enable dozens and dozens of criminals, and that could lead to many more crimes than any one street criminal could ever perpetrate.

Interesting questions. Thanks for pressing this. I think we need to explore the guilt and responsibility of those who while not actually committing the crimes, are charged with preventing them and who fail in their duty and so betray public trust.


...

[snowdays]

7. He is right. Dems need to accept accountability also. Turley has condemned

Republicans already.

[The Magistrate]

10. Turley, Ma'am, Receives His Air-Time Because He Twists This Matter Into An Attack On Democrats

He never gives a clean shot at the actual criminals; he is dedicated to squirting squid's ink over the whole matter in order to present Democrats as the real villains.

[snowdays]

22. I think your 'facts' are twisted. Dems are up to their necks in this matter.

[The Magistrate]

24. No, Ma'am, My Facts Are Quite Straight, And My Focus Sharp On The Actual Criminals Here

Criminal culpability in this matter is confined to those persons in the Executive who gave orders to torture prisoners, and carried out those orders; prosecuting these criminals successfully is my sole interest in the matter. If you want prosecutions of the actual criminals, you must keep the matter focus tightly upon them, and them alone.

[snowdays]

25. The focus needs to be on ALL involved --including Pelosi who was

in on these meetings. Simple as that.

[The Magistrate]

28. No, Ma'am, The Focus Needs To Be On Actual Crimes, And People Who Actually Committed Them

There is no criminal liability in this matter outside the Executive.

[snowdays]

30. The Dems are guilty because of their silence. Enough said.

[The Magistrate]

33. Mere Noise, Ma'am, And Noise Which Helps Shield The Persons Who Actually Committed Crimes

The truth of the matter is that, for you, this is simply one more pretext to give vent to a pre-existing distaste for leading Democrats in Congress: if it was not this, you would be denouncing them over something else.

[Two Americas]

178. yes

Guilty of that, regardless of what they are not guilty of and regardless of whatever anyone else is guilty of.


...

[Two Americas]

37. no

If we had a city overrun by a criminal gang, and the prosecutor's office and law enforcement had failed to do their duty, we would not refrain from criticizing them for that and we would not say "hey let's focus on the actual criminals!" The prosecutors and the police would be criticized, and justifiably so, for failing to protect the public from the criminals, whether or not they were criminally liable, and it would be no excuse whatsoever to say "the criminals were worse!"

No, no, no a thousand times no. I utterly reject your doctrine here. It is extremely dangerous and morally unjustifiable.



..

[The Magistrate]

38. The First Person Who Invokes Morals In Discussing Crime, Sir, Loses, Irretrievably

Persons in the Executive, from the highest levels down, committed the crime of torturing prisoners in their custody. The responsibility for this is theirs alone. Persons attempting to fudge this focus achieve only the shielding of those criminals. They lay themselves open to suspicion concerning their intent by this.

[Two Americas]

41. misrepresentation

I am not saying that the possible complicity of any Democrats in any way mitigates the criminal liability of any perpetrators.

Why on earth would you suggest that raising moral issues about complicity and enabling of evil means hat I "lose?" Lose what? Are you saying that bonce crimes have been committed, no discussion of morality is then appropriate?

I must also object to your insinuation about the motives or agenda of any and all critics and dissenters should they speak out about officials who happen to have a "D" after their names. That is highly suppressive of a free and open discussion, and malicious and divisive, as well.

You say "they lay themselves open to suspicion." By doing what? And who is this "they" you would like us all to be suspicious of? You are the one raising suspicions, without foundation or justification, but then you say that it is the fault of those about whom you are slyly raising suspicion through hints and insinuations. What would you have people do so that you would not smear them, so that they would not be opening themselves up to suspicion? Be silent? be silent about certain subjects, or certain people?


..

[The Magistrate]

44. The Focus Of Your Comments, Sir, Is Attacking Democrats For 'Complicity', Not The Actual Criminals

So long as this disproportion is evident, the question of whether the true interest is in prosecuting infamous crimes, or in pressing a grudge against leading Democrats, whether from the left or the right, must remain open. A number of people on the left consider the Democratic Party every bit as much an enemy as the Republicans, and make it very clear in their comments this is so. It has been a frequent occurrence in left history that popular left-center or center-left bodies have been the principal focus of attack by persons on the far left, assailed far more fiercely than rightist bodies, often as part of an openly declared strategy maintaining that destroying such bodies will leave nowhere but the far left for people to seek leadership against the right. None of this is new, rather it is depressingly familiar, and a leading reason for rightist victory.

Morals have nothing whatever to do with crime. Morals are not law, and crime is a violation of law. Law is generally in place to protect certain material interests, and frequently mandates quite offensive to my sense of moral behavior, or stigmatizes as crime behavior which strikes me personally as the proper moral response to a situation. Thus invoking the moral in discussion of the criminal betrays a basic confusion that is unlikely to lead to an enlightening discussion.

My interest in this is seeing the prosecution of persons who actually committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in their custody in the name of my country. Anything else is mere distraction from this at best, and active obstruction of it at worst.

[Two Americas]

51. you are repeating yourself

I am focused on the subject of this thread. Your implication that therefore I am not interested in seeing Bush officials brought to justice is false and unsupported.

Your theme here - that because in your imagination "a number of people on the left consider the Democratic Party every bit as much an enemy as the Republicans" and so therefore we cannot criticize politicians with a "D" after their name for any reason, is an attempt at suppressing free and open discussion, in my view. Any and all criticism could be similarly dismissed and asking readers to dismiss the opinions of others because of what they supposedly are, or what you claim to be their motives or agenda, is suppressive - it is the only way available to you for suppressing the discussion that can possibly work.

If any and all criticism of any Democratic party politician is liable to be suppressed by your standards here as you are presenting them, there is no hope then of ever improving the party and representative democracy has been sabotaged and undermined. Your doctrine violates every principle and ideal that leads us to be Democrats in the first place.


...

[The Magistrate]

60. Repetition, Sir, Is A Useful Tactic In Communication

Marketing campaigns are designed to ensure that members of the target audience are exposed to the message a certain number of times, that number having been calculated ensure the message will be recalled by the persons whom it is desired to influence.

My capsule recitation of an important element of left history is hardly a product of my imagination, and attempting to claim it is establishes yet again you may be in a bit over your head here. This forum is positively littered with my criticisms of particular Democrats in the Congress, and my insistence of prosecution of criminals in the Bush administration does not, shall we say, jibe closely with the present statements of President Obama's administration. Criticism is not a problem: distortion and exaggeration is is. When these latter are present, it is likely an agenda beyond correction and reform is also present. Indeed, your statement that "I would also argue that Pelosi's crime is worse" suggests this very strongly.

[Two Americas]

68. indeed

A marketing campaign is exactly what you are doing, in my view. Yes, repeating things can work to impress them in people's minds, in the hope that those people will eventually internalize that and accept it as the truth. However, that does not mean that it as a logical argument.

So now when I say you are making unfounded claims - that this left you would have us imagine to exist, and that you insinuate includes me, Turley, and others unnamed, is as opposed to the Democrats as they are to the Republicans, you call that a "claim" that is unfounded. We can go around in circles on that forever. I could now say that your claim that my claim that your claim is unfounded is unfounded. That gets a little silly.

Are all criticisms of all Democratic politicians to all be seen as the same? Are all people who make any criticism of any Democratic party politician to be seen as having the same hidden motives and agenda?

What does that have to do with the topic of his thread - a particular opinion expressed by a particular person about complicity in a particular way on a particular issue by a particular politician? Nothing, that I can see.

Beyond that, what does that have to do with my specific counter-arguments to the doctrine you are promoting? Nothing, that I can see.


...

[The Magistrate]

75. The Aim Of Political Action, Sir, Is Creating the Widest Possible Agreement With One's View

It is certainly my intent that people who do not as yet agree with me come to do so. That is your intent also, obviously. People who may read these exchanges will form their own opinions concerning which presentation seems more cogent and persuasive.

It is not enough to simply state my summary of one important element of left history is unfounded; to overthrow it, you need to make adduce facts with controvert it. You need to demonstrate a superior knowledge of the early struggles in the Socialist movement between 'collaborationists' and 'revolutionists', of the political war between Communists and Social Democrats in Europe after the Bolshevik revolution, of radical lines pressed against liberals in the Sixties, and even of the 'not a dime's worth of difference' line pressed in 2000 by Nader, and continuing in circulation into the present. Unles you do, you are not going to leave many people agreeing with your claim my statement is simply an 'unfounded claim', and are likely to leave many viewing it as mere reflexive noise.

[omega minimo]

84. Strongarming the discussion amongst Democrats is not good for Democrats, Ma'am

[The Magistrate]

89. Odd, Sir, How Often Cogently Stated Disagreement Is Presented As 'Stifling Debate'

You do not find me declaring people who present views differing from mine are 'strong-arming' or 'stifling' me. People who indulge in such statements are simply declaring they cannot cope with the presentation of views other than their own, and doubt their own ability to uphold their views in a manner that can see them prevail.

[omega minimo]

96. Nonsense, Ma'am. An objective read of the thread displays the verbal maneuverings

to require others to dance to your tune.

[The Magistrate]

114. An Odd Way, Sir, To Describe Picking a Point And Sticking To It....

"I will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer long."

[omega minimo]

123. That's great

Please just don't stick it to others as if anything they say outside your perameters is foolish or suspect.

:patriot:

"My interest in this is seeing the prosecution of persons who actually committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in their custody in the name of my country. Anything else is mere distraction from this at best, and active obstruction of it at worst."

[The Magistrate]

125. Why Not, Sir?

If the line people press, and seem to wish to have pressed more widely, will work against my desired goal, on what ground would you have me refrain from expressing my opposition, and doing so to the best of my poor abilities?

[omega minimo]

128. On the grounds that it's not good for Democrats, Ma'am

[Two Americas]

87. maybe

Yes, you are trying to impress your view on others and so am I.

I am talking about the soundness of your argument.

You are now off on some theory of the history of the left, in justification of your vague broad-brush dismissals of the messengers as a way to dismiss he message, a justification that could be applied to anyone with whom you disagree on anything. What that has to do with this thread is a mystery. You are not denying that you are making speculative insinuations about people and their imagined motives and agenda rather than refuting their argument, you are saying that doing so is justified. So you can create a good red herring. It is still a red herring. You are good at attacking the messenger rather than the message. I grant you that. No argument from me. It is still an attack on the messenger, and it is still no substitute for a rebuttal of the message.

Bolsheviks? Communists? Nader? I had a neighbor once who didn't like G. Mennen Williams, yet was not a Republican. Can we work him in here somehow? After all, if all critics of all Democrats who are not Republicans are the same we shouldn't leave him out. He smoked cigars, too, and was an auto worker.


...

[omega minimo]

98. Sometimes a red herring is just a red herring.

or is it red-baiting? Baiting a red herring?

[Two Americas]

200. yes

And sometimes "something is fishy around here" is all that need be said.


...

[omega minimo]

205. sometimes

it's the fishing around that's unwelcome :yoiks:

[omega minimo]

120. Near Mere Noise, Ma'am

"It has been a frequent occurrence in left history that popular left-center or center-left bodies have been the principal focus of attack by persons on the far left, assailed far more fiercely than rightist bodies, often as part of an openly declared strategy maintaining that destroying such bodies will leave nowhere but the far left for people to seek leadership against the right. None of this is new, rather it is depressingly familiar, and a leading reason for rightist victory."

However well steeped in history, in the context of recent decades leading to the current state of the ship of state, your comment is absurd.

The assertion that "popular left-center or center-left bodies have been the principal focus of attack by persons on the far left, assailed far more fiercely than rightist bodies" and that "is a leading reason for rightist victory" is absurd in the face of all the damage that Republican Lite has done to the Democratic Party since Reagan!!

To cast thinly veiled asparagus, as Two Americas has correctly pointed out (as subtly crafted as they are) at anyone who doesn't toe the line "prosecutable crimes or no talking" rule;

And to pretend that there even IS a "far left" doing some sort of severe damage by airing common concerns of those who want to support Democrats and DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPRESENTATION FROM THEM WHILE IN OFFICE, is beyond absurd and insulting, it's dishonest.


"Persons in the Executive, from the highest levels down, committed the crime of torturing prisoners in their custody. The responsibility for this is theirs alone. Persons attempting to fudge this focus achieve only the shielding of those criminals. They lay themselves open to suspicion concerning their intent by this."


The responsibility for this is not theirs alone. You choose to limit discussion to criminal responsibility.

The responsibility for this is not theirs alone.

An important point of mutual concern and discussion, if it were allowed to breathe, would be what compromised or coerced positions caused those in the Legislative Branch who DO HAVE OVERSIGHT to be culpable and complicit.


"My interest in this is seeing the prosecution of persons who actually committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in their custody in the name of my country. Anything else is mere distraction from this at best, and active obstruction of it at worst."

That may be true for you. But "anything else" includes the concerns and comments of others, including questions about the enabling behavior of our elected leaders. Perhaps what needs to be revealed is the pressures they were under to act complicitly.

Perhaps when the Rule of Law is restored, so will be lost confidence.

[The Magistrate]

129. No, Sir, It Is Not

The tendency towards fratricide among leftists is one of our enduring disabilities. It can be seen in daily operation on this forum, among other places. All acknowledge that the cohesion of the right is one of the reasons it retains power and a degree of mass support, and yet we will learn the lesson and work in unison. To achieve prosecution of persons in the Bush administration who committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in custody, we must move public opinion to a point where that enjoys a wide assent, that political figures leading our Party must acknowledge and gratify. Pressing lines that blend other figures into the mix as somehow culpable in or responsible for the crimes of the Bush administration will not help move public opinion in the desired direction. As is usually the case in these sorts of things, the question is whether one wishes to see some concrete achievement wrought, or display one's superior moral character before the gaze of others. The gaze turned on displays of moral superiority, by the way, is seldom an admiring one: most people resent the hell out of such displays, and come swiftly to dislike those who make them....

"Go into the street and give the first man you meet a lecture towards his moral improvement, and the second a shilling, and see which will call you his friend."

[omega minimo]

170. .

[omega minimo]

171. The "cohesion of the right" depends on the complicity of the "left"

"To achieve prosecution of persons in the Bush administration who committed the war crime of torturing prisoners in custody, we must move public opinion to a point where that enjoys a wide assent, that political figures leading our Party must acknowledge and gratify."

The public opinion is already there, just as it was for impeachment, in numbers of substantial quantity and quality to invoke the Rule of Law. Let that voice be HEARD.

The pretense that public opinion is what is hobbling the ability of elected officials to act is bizarre.

[JoseGaspar]

93. Has it entirely escaped you that,

the "Actual Crimes, And People Who Actually Committed Them", are not being prosecuted either? "Not yet...", is not a sufficient answer and neither is some empty conjecture about some future "plan".

In Pelosi's case, honor, heroism, and patriotism went in one direction and she went in another. You want to get her off on a technicality. Fine. She is not "as guilty" or even "guilty" at all. She is simply a rank opportunist without a moral bone in her body.

Or do you propose to nominate her for a "Profile in Courage"?

[The Magistrate]

124. It Is My Desire That They Be Prosecuted, Sir

For this to occur, there must be a general revulsion at the criminals abroad in the populace. Crying up charges of 'complicity' and the like against persons other than the criminals do not contribute to cultivating this, and will tend to operate against it.

Calling a professional politician an opportunist is a little redundant. Moral people do a good deal more harm than some suppose; honest rogues are generally preferable.

"I prefer the wicked to the foolish. The wicked sometimes rest."

[JoseGaspar]

181. You've lost your compass, sir.

You are passing from pragmatism to cynicism without noticing the canyon that is crossed. Even Bonaparte said that he preferred a lucky general to a smart one, but he was wrong. Lucky generals and honest rogues are NOT preferable. They are merely the norm.

Save yourself, sir.

[The Magistrate]

190. Oh No, Sir! Not A Charge Of Cynicism....

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

[JoseGaspar]

207. Do you quote Shaw to prove my point?

Shaw is one of the many "fathers" of modern cynicism, more numerous than the claimants to Anna Nicole Smith's baby. Do you really want this perspective as your own?

"If more than ten percent of the population likes a painting it should be burned, for it must be bad."

Your argument eats its own tail, sir. You prove its connection to rotten, putrescent Victorian morality, just as our circumstances somewhat mirror rotting Victorianism - but nothing more than that can you claim.

Once again sir, save yourself.

[The Magistrate]

211. Hell, Sir, Mr. Shaw Said Much Worse Than That! Hunt Around, The Old Man Got Off Some Zingers....

But my suggestion is that, making sure to get editions containing the prefaces, you start off with Saint Joan, work through Major Barbara and Man and Superman, and Heartbreak House (making sure to attend the preface there, it speaks very closely to present political life here), and perhaps after that we can discuss the matter....

"It is his life's work to announce the obvious in terms of the scandalous."

[JoseGaspar]

234. I quite like my quote, sir, and it was intended as a gift to you.

I thought you would like the opportunity to prattle on about the great unwashed. Apparently, you don't need such gifts. You are willing to talk about your own superiority on many subjects, without prompting.

I am not the least surprised that you like Shaw, and I am not unfamiliar with him myself, although perhaps not in the way that you may wish. A critic who never was able to abandon the certainty of his own superiority, a man of principle, who gave the same weight to his petty personal preferences as he did to the most important issues of his day, an iconoclast whose independence was as tenuous as his actual social status, a Fabian who believed in the the imposition of Socialism despite and not because of the working classes, and, in the end, the miserable product of a the middle class sewer that was the golden age / impending collapse of the British Empire, Shaw was the ultimate impotent creation of his times rather than the mighty independent Lion he fancied himself to be.

Yet, Shaw had both humor and talent, neither of which do you evidence in the slightest.

I have given you two opportunities to explain yourself, sir, both of which you have used for self-indulgence. You do not get a third.

[omega minimo]

236. "Apparently, you don't need such gifts...."

".... You are willing to talk about your own superiority on many subjects, without prompting."




:rofl: :spray: hoist on his own petard.

[omega minimo]

222. "putrescent Victorian morality' or "Indie music scene"?

"If more than ten percent of the population likes a painting it should be burned, for it must be bad."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5623273&mesg_id=5624727

Perhaps a cynic can make the argument both ways.

[JoseGaspar]

232. Thank you, Mr. Alpha and Omega, for catching the reference.

Our friend, the Magistrate, seems to be too preoccupied establishing alpha-dog-hood to notice the obvious.

[Two Americas]

31. I strongly disagree

I would argue first that it is absolutely appropriate that we hold our own to higher standards and that it is entirely appropriate to criticize Pelosi for this, and I would also argue that Pelosi's crime is worse.

First, your analogy is off base. Let's say the neighbor's child committed a crime, and my child stood by and watched and did or said nothing. My child's error is not diminished or mitigated by the fact that the other child's crime is worse, and it would be no excuse for my child to say "why are you hassling me? You should be hassling the neighbor's kid!" we voted for Democrats, not Republicans, so in that sense they are our children, and whatever the neighbor's children may have done is irrelevant.

We didn't depend upon Bush and Cheney to defend civil rights or to fight for the principles and ideals we honor. We do depend upon Democrats to do that. Blaming the Republicans for this is akin to blaming the rain when our roof leaks, and then using the rain as an excuse to dismiss the failure by the roof repair people - the Democrats - to do their job. Or, we could see it as saying "the arsonists are worse!" as an excuse for an inept group of fire fighters. The Democrats are charged with a different job than the Republicans are. Of course the arsonists don't put out fires - they never pretended that they would. That is not excuse for the failure of the fire fighters to put out fires.

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing. Let that statement sink in for a minute or two.

During the Bush years, many Republican voters I talked to about the crimes of the Bush administration said "if what you are saying is true, and I trust you and now believe that it is, why have we heard nothing from the Democratic party politicians?" Indeed. They were acknowledging that even Republican voters depend upon the opposition party to keep their own party honest.


...

[The Magistrate]

36. You May Disagree All You Want, Sir, But That Will Not Alter The Facts Of Turley's Behavior

Your critique of the analogy contains the fatal flaw of your analysis: you say your child made an error while the other committed a crime. The weight of the things are so unequal as to bear no sensible comparison: error is not crime, else there would not be two separate words for the different things. The most serious item should be the focus of outrage and comment, not the lesser item. Persons who reverse the order are up to no good.

Regarding your other point, only a single standard can be employed if justice is to be done. In this matter, that standard is criminal liability. Nothing else concerns me in this matter.

[Two Americas]

43. again you misrepresent what I am saying

You say that "the weight of the things are so unequal as to bear no sensible comparison."

I am not comparing.

I am not saying that we should focus on the one and not the other.


...

[The Magistrate]

46. You Said, Sir: "I would also argue that Pelosi's crime is worse"

Just a friendly word of advice from an old campaigner: do not leave things like that lying around in a debate such as this, when you are trying to claim someone is misrepresenting your position by stating your principal focus is on persons who bear no criminal liability rather than on those who do. It is right up there with a person who uses the back of his utility bill to write the 'give me all your money' note he slips to the teller when holding up a bank.

Speaker Pelosi bears no criminal liability under any construction of the relevant laws regarding the torture of prisoners in custody, an therefore has committed no crime, let alone a 'worse' one.

[Two Americas]

55. yes, I know

I was so careful not to make some minor error that you could then latch onto to divert people from the topic at hand. It is almost impossible to do, however, and using the word "crime" gave you an opening.

The word "crime" has more than one definition, as I pointed out elsewhere, as in "crimes of the heart."

No aspect of my argument depends upon the use of the word "crime," however. Substitute "offense" or "wicked act" if you like. I am not arguing that Pelosi is literally guilty of violating any law.


...

[The Magistrate]

64. Of Course She Broke No Law, Sir, Yet You Continue To Focus Not On the Criminals Who Did, But On Her

You are not really presenting an argument, you are simply maintaining that the focus of ire over the crimes committed by the Bush administration should be Democrats in Congress. Since that is self-evident nonesense, you are having a difficult time of it....

[Two Americas]

71. yes

I am focusing on the topic of the thread. I have often posted on other threads discussing holding the perpetrators from the Bush administration criminally liable. Your insinuation that I am focusing on Pelosi in lieu of the Bush officials is false.

I am not "maintaining that the focus of ire over the crimes committed by the Bush administration should be Democrats in Congress." That is how you wish to portray critics of Democrats in Congress, so as to dismiss them, or rather so that the readers here will dismiss them.

I used the example of the arsonists and the fire fighters, which I think is a good one. We do not defend, or refrain from criticizing inept and ineffective fire fighters because "we should be focusing on the arsonists" or because "the arsonists are worse."

Here we are discussion the failures by the fire fighters. You want to claim that this is in lieu of holding the arsonists accountable. That is your assertion, and you have not supported that or made you case. It is not incumbent upon me to prove that your assertion is false, it is up to you to make the case for your assertion.



...

[The Magistrate]

85. The Topic, Sir, Is Attempts To 'Spin' Responsibility Off The Bush Administration And Onto Democrats

You are upholding the proposition that this is what should be done. My view is that it is at best a waste of time and at worse provides active assistance to the Bush administration.

[Two Americas]

102. so say you

Not according to me, and not according to anything in the OP. You are free to think that. However, attempting to ascribe motives and an agenda to others as a way to dismiss what they are saying - and more importantly, as a deceptive way to get others to dismiss what they are saying - is not a legitimate argument that we need take seriously.

You say that I am trying to "spin responsibility off the Bush administration and onto Democrats." You have failed to support that assertion, and I deny it. In any case, it is an attack on the messenger and not on the message, and that always poisons the discussion. You do no deny this, you instead argue that it is justified. I am saying that attacking the messenger is never and adequate substitute for a rebuttal of the message, and should be rejected by thoughtful readers here.



...

[The Magistrate]

136. Again, Sir, Your Words: "I would also argue that Pelosi's crime is worse"

It would be hard to find a better example of an attempt to spin off responsibility for the crimes of the Bush administration onto Democrats instead.

[Two Americas]

168. I explained that

You must know that clinging to that one statement - as misrepresented by you now, since I have explained how I used that word - is not a legitimate rebuttal to anything I have said.


...

[omega minimo]

172. Two or three times before it's repeated misuse

[Two Americas]

45. by the way

I have not been defending Turley, but rather challenging your statements, and I would say the same things regardless of what Turley said.

However, I do not see where he is saying that the Pelosi's actions are equal to the actions of Bush officials, nor am I seeing here he is saying that we should not focus on the crimes of the Bush administration nor that the guilt of the Bush administration is in any way less because of anything Pelosi did.

I also cannot see how your speculation as to Turley's motives, and the motives or supposed agenda of any others, have any bearing on a discussion about the content of the Turley article. Raising vague and malicious suspicions about the motives and agenda of those with whom you disagree is not a legitimate rebuttal of their arguments.



on edit - typo

...

[The Magistrate]

49. Of Course A Person's Interests Are Relevant In Assessing Their Statements In Political Debate, Sir

Turley has been a self-promoter extraordinaire ever since he arrived on the public scene as an enthusiastic cheer-leader for the Impeachment of President Clinton. His interest in this matter is seeing to it Democrats are more damaged in this controversy than Republicans.

[Two Americas]

76. again, no one said otherwise

Turley may be all that you say. So what?

[The Magistrate]

80. And Yet, Sir, You Commenced Taking Me To Task For Doing What You Now Endorse as Proper

"Focus, gentlemen, focus!"

[Two Americas]

107. you lost me there

How have I strayed from the focus of his thread, other than where you may have tried to lead us?

You want this discussion to be about taking focus or pressure off of the Bush administration and crimes they committed. I don't think that is happening, and I don't think you have supported your assertion that it is happening.

The only way you have tried to support your assertions is by talking about the messengers rather than the message. "They are this way or the other, or others that are sort of like them are some way or the other, so therefore they might have such and such motives or agenda, so therefore we should ignore what they say."


...

[The Magistrate]

140. "I'm Never Lost! People Always Tell Me Where To Go!"

[Two Americas]

169. heh

Very good.

[azmouse]

70. You are by far the smartest man in the room.

I very much agree with the arguments you put forth in this thread.
Please continue with the excellent, thought-provoking posts.

[The Magistrate]

143. Much Appreciated, Ma'am

So long as the coffee and cigarettes hold out....

[Sparkly]

220. Isn't it more like...

Mom: Jimmy, did you break my prize vase?
Jimmy: Yeah, what are you going to do about it?
Mom: Oh, nothing.
Tommy: Mom! You aren't going to do anything to punish Jimmy?
Mom: Nah, that was in the past, it's time to move on.
Tommy: Is it because you perched it where you knew it could break?
Mom: Let's move on.

[Andy823]

2. I say it's time for change.

We can't keep covering things up just because some of the democrats in congress were in on it. If they did something wrong, then lets get it out in the open and demand investigations into "all" who had a hand in this, and those who have been helping to cover up the crimes committed by Bush and his administration! If some democrats end up being removed from their jobs, so be it. If an investigation reveals that some democrats by need to be put on trial, so be it. We can't complain about the republicans and cover up for the democrats, that makes us no better than they are!

We need members of congress who will stand up for the people, and to cover up for the criminals!

[snowdays]

3. This relentless drip drip is not good for the Dem. Party. It is time

to get it out once and for all and let the chips fall where they may.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. The accomplices should be held accountable. The "I didn't know" defense went out at Nuremburg.

The defense of the accomplices who sat silently by and are now playing the "I was too stupid and ill informed to know what was going on" is downright pathetic. As are their defenders here.

[The Magistrate]

11. That Is Nonesense, Sir: 'I Followed Orders' Went Out At Nurenburg

No one in Congress meets the legal definition of an accomplice to any crime of the Executive.

All that is happening here is that a number of people who do not like leading Congressional Democrats are using this as a pretext to re-hash the attacks they enjoy making on same.

[islandmkl]

14. i believe the 'nonsense' is that you have lost your working knowledge of the nature..

of our system...

again, the executive branch is not singular in power, not by design...it can become more powerful when those in the other branches ALLOW it...which brings us to the question of Congressional responsibility...

if your premise is to have any validity, where are the Congressional inquiries??

your take on Nuremburg is shaky, at best...complicity, on all levels, was prosecuted...'following orders' and 'not knowing' were among various 'defenses' that were invalidated...

[The Magistrate]

19. Quite The Contrary, Sir: You Seem To Have A Shaky Grasp Of Our System's Divisions

Congress has no authority whatever over the internal workings of the Executive branch, save by law passed by Congress and signed by the Executive. Congress cannot simply tell anyone in the Executive what to do, or more to the point, what not to do. When leaders of the Executive tell their subordinates to do something, and those subordinates do it, responsibility rest solely with those persons involved directly in the Executive branch.

At Nurenberg, people were tried for crimes they personally committed, either by use of their ministerial or military command authority in giving orders for criminal behavior, or by their obeying orders they were given that directed criminal behavior. It is true some jurists were tried for enforcing laws that were criminal under recognized standards of pre-Nazi jurisprudence, and their culpability in this regard rested on peculiarities of legal structures in place it is not worth going into here, beyond pointing out that a good deal of Weimar law remained, at least theoretically, in force throughout the Nazi period.

[omega minimo]

176. Quite the Contrary, Sir: Congress can require the Executive branch to uphold and follow the law

aka Impeachment hearings, investigations, indictment, trial or even removal from office.


"Congress has no authority whatever over the internal workings of the Executive branch, save by law passed by Congress and signed by the Executive."

Precisely. The Law.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. The "legal definition" is frequently at odds with common human decency.

Some Democrat, and virtually all Republican politicians who approved, directly or indirectly in allowing or sitting by while this country's military and intelligence agents committed crimes are culpable. If not under a "legal definition", at least in a moral sense.

The "good German" defense of "not knowing" is craven irresponsibility. At best, they kept themselves willingly ignorant of the obvious and did nothing but cover their own sorry asses for political, not moral, reasons.

[The Magistrate]

53. There, Sir, We Agree

The benefit of focus on a legal standard is that it is defined with a reasonable degree of exactness and some attempt at objectivity, so that persons can reach agreement on whether an act is or is not a crime whatever their view concerning whether or not it is or is not a moral or decently human action. No legal standard is available under which Speaker Pelosi can be said to have committed a crime; every legal standard available clearly indicates the Bush administration committed the crime of torturing prisoners in custody. The latter should be the focus of comment on this matter. we may have very different views of what constitutes moral behavior or human decency, but we can certainly agree on that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. And, accountability need not take place in a courtroom.

Those politicians that put their political ambitions above common human decency can be held accountable, at the ballot box, or by the weight of public disdain. Or, at least theoretically, by their own consciences.

[The Magistrate]

66. Conscience, My Friend, is About All You Are Likely To Get, and Even That Is None Too Probable

Speaker Pelosi is going to remain Speaker, and will be returned with thumping majorities from her district so long as she cares to run.

We do ourselves, and the long-term cause of the left, much better service by seeing to the discrediting, to the maximum degree possible, of the far right in our political life, and focusing tightly on the criminal liability of persons in the Bush administration is an excellent tool for that purpose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Unfortunately, you are probably right.

We, as a nation, are much too caught up in the notion of "not as bad" = good. We are expected to, and usually, obey the dictates of the political moment and settle for less. George Washington was right when he warned of "factions" in his farewell address, diluting the well-being of the nation and people in favor of popularity or expediency.

Or, as Mark Twain put it,

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians."

"Right here in this heart and home and fountain-head of law, this great factory where are forged those rules that create good order and compel virtue and honesty in the other communities of the land, rascality achieves its highest perfection." 

[The Magistrate]

77. It Is Certainly Regrettable, Sir

"Keep your expectations low. It is better to be pleasantly surprised on occasion than to be bitterly disappointed continually."

[omega minimo]

155. "Focusing tightly on the criminal liability of persons in the Bush administration" = Impeachment

and investigations. It was Off The Table. By Pelosi's decree. NOW you want that "tight focus"?

[The Magistrate]

158. There Were Excellent Arguments To Be Made For Impeachment In '07, Sir

Also sound arguments against it, and those prevailed. The political considerations on which that decision was made do seem to have paid off well, with some assist from fortune, and it does not trouble me the course taken was my preference at the time. But it is hardly the case Impeachment would have been an effective remedy in the sense you seem to desire; there was no chance whatever a Bill of Impeachment passed by the House would have been sustained by Conviction in the Senate, and no one would have been removed from office or indicted by the Justice department in consequence. It is past guessing what the political effect would have been, and no certainty it would have redounded to our favor in '08.

[omega minimo]

174. TY for showing how strategerists predict the future w/certainty, then look back and credit "Fortune"

You think "political considerations on which that decision was made do seem to have paid off well"? You got your D President and D Congress and D Speaker........

And yet you're still "focused" on shaping the public perception and will to somehow petition their elected representatives to do what they should do because it's their sworn duty under the law?

As a student of history, you don't realize that the only REAL effective and strategeric way to do that would have been investigations, hearings and the potential impeachment and removal from office of the criminals AT THE TIME?

Taking impeachment Off The Table and enabling the crimes to continue sends a pretty strong perception management signal to the people, does it not?

NOW you think you'll get through to them? Good luck with that. :thumbsup:


"....seem to have paid off well, with some assist from fortune, and it does not trouble me the course taken was my preference at the time....."

So "FORTUNE" played a part, although the strategerists were all SO certain at the time of their soothsaying skills, which you reiterate with the hindsight of 20/20 foresight (i.e. it's true it didn't work because we never tried!!!):

"...there was no chance whatever a Bill of Impeachment passed by the House would have been sustained by Conviction in the Senate, and no one would have been removed from office or indicted by the Justice department in consequence."

You start with the hearings and investigations. No one knows what will happen after that. That's just Reality. Pretending that removal from office was the end game and anything short of that was not worth ANY EFFORT is strategery and is reprehensible.

One thing that would have been easy to predict: the public would have had a multi-generational civics lesson it hasn't seen for 35+ years.

"It is past guessing what the political effect would have been, and no certainty it would have redounded to our favor in '08."

No, now it is not past guessing what the political effect would have been because it is what it is. Here in the actual present and all. The strategerists gambled on power on The Hill. Others would have gambled on the integrity of the political system.

One result is a lack of credibility or confidence in the leaders who allowed the crimes to continue, one way or another, including taking impeachment "Off The Table." You think Democrats need to reach out to the base? How bout the leadership gives us an explanation for THAT?

[The Magistrate]

179. One Last Round, Sir, Since You Have Been So Busy In My Pleasant Absence....

One of the benefits of not elevating differences regarding strategies and tactics to the level of moral concerns is an equanimity with actual outcomes, favorable or otherwise. If the course which seems best to me is not the one adopted, it is not incumbent on me to view this as the triumph of evil over good. My support for a course of hearings leading to impeachment commencing in '07 owed to my view that this would be an excellent means to prepare the ground for an electoral sweep in the coming Presidential election. This was achieved, and so there is no grounds for me to be discontent over another course having been adopted. No one cognizant of strategy would venture to dispute the role played by fortune: where two wills contend on a field where factors neither can completely control have play, chance must take a hand, and a good deal of strategy is constructing plans which are sufficiently flexible to be readily adapted to unexpected shifts in conditions. There were certainly elements of fortune that contributed to the outcome of the '08 election being so favorable to the Democrats, one worth naming being the resolutely incompetent response of McCain to the financial crisis. This was something not forced by any effort of President Obama's campaign, nor baked in the cake of the thing by factors inherent in the opposition or the situation.

Persons who actually bear responsibility for outcomes tend to take a more cautious line in approaching conflict than people who do not bear responsibility for consequences. In the political climate existing after the '06 elections, there was no ground for certainty the outcome of a drive for impeachment would have been beneficial to the Democratic Party. The effort would have opened many possible lines of riposte to the enemy, and some might well have struck home and told badly. Strategy aims to reduce uncertainty to a manageable minimum, so that the enemy has little room in which to affect the course of events, and must react, along lines that can be anticipated and balked further, to what you do. It does not bother me if professionals who do bear the consequences of undertaking an action conclude the necessary minimum of uncertainty cannot be achieved, and that a course which courts adverse effects of great scale as well as offering possibility of great gains is not worth embarking on.

[omega minimo]

195. So it's all about what's best for the Democratic Party rather than what's best for the country

"In the political climate existing after the '06 elections, there was no ground for certainty the outcome of a drive for impeachment would have been beneficial to the Democratic Party."

* So it's all about what's best for the Democratic Party rather than what's best for the country.

"It does not bother me if professionals who do bear the consequences of undertaking an action conclude the necessary minimum of uncertainty cannot be achieved, and that a course which courts adverse effects of great scale as well as offering possibility of great gains is not worth embarking on."

* "Professionals"? What consequences are borne by the professional politicians who ignore the will of the people and their own sworn duty to something greater, vital and more crucial to the nation than their political affiliation? That's not "responsible."



This thread and your comments have been enlightening. The same end game is being played here as with impeachment. The same all or nothing tunnel vision (aka "focus") on product and not process. Including every trick in the book, up to and including mocking those of principle as somehow repulsively pretentious -- selling out the very fundamentals without which there would be no American political game to play and pervert.

Claiming that anything but focus on Bushco and underlings as targets for prosecution is a ruse. The truth is that investigations and hearings will reveal the complicity of others -- including Congress -- anyway. Pre-investigation damage control will not prevent that.

Claiming that anything but removal from office and prognosticating that it was impossible was a ruse. It allowed most Democrats to do nothing to hold Bushco accountable. The truth is that investigations and hearings would have revealed the complicity of others -- including Congress -- anyway. Post-election damage control will not alter that.

An honest discussion of these matters would reach the point of asking this:

What was it that convinced these complicit Congressmembers to behave this way? Were they threatened, coerced, blackmailed or as many assume, merely putting their politics ahead of their sworn duty to the nation and its people?


"These very same Democratic members, particularly Pelosi, blocked past efforts to investigate the torture allegations and blocked any effort to look into impeachment due to the commission of war crimes. It is now clear (as some of us have been saying for years) that these investigations would have revealed the involvement of Democratic members."

Turley is correct on at least that point.

And for the record, The Magistrate, I agree with bread and roses and request you cease and desist with us two and anyone who requests it:

"139 bread and roses
"...I find being addressed as "ma'am" (or "sir") extremely distasteful. It is at once pretentious and belittling, of which I am sure you are quite aware."

[The Magistrate]

212. In Most Instances, Sir, Those Are Identical

One would hardly chose to be a Democrat without feeling some considerable sympathy for that proposition, after all....

[omega minimo]

225. Masterfully missing the points

[omega minimo]

175. .

[OHdem10]

13. This is why Obama is right. We need to turn the page or become

so bogged down in Party Sniping, nothing gets accomplished.

The Democrats should have had the Spine to come to Activists very
early on and explained their vulnerability.

Pelosi is not alone. Using FOIA Fox has attained materials which
indicate at least 60 members from Senate and House were aware and
briefed.

Continuing to have drip drip drip can essentially destroy Obama's
Presidency and lose all Democratic Gains.


Turn the Page.

[grasswire]

18. Bushwah!

No more going along to get along. NO MORE!

I don't care who is implicated, or punished.

Truth must prevail if the people are to believe in the democratic process.

[cali]

21. cliches. first of all, most people in this country, sadly enoufh, support

torture. the argumenr rhat the truth must prevail for people ro believe in rhe democratic system, is a silly one. Although, I'm all for prosecution of those that formulated, directed and carried out illegal activitis, I recognize that the argument that we must prosecute to regain or preserve democracy, is a strikingly poor one. Did France lose its democracy because they never posecuted the torturers of Algeria? Did Spain lose its because they never prosecuted Franco era crimes?

[iamthebandfanman]

29. no, but they didnt gain status.

this is all about taking the morally higher ground and giving the perception that we are 'the good guys'.


if we cant hold ourselves accountable, why should we demand others follow their laws?

suggesting we follow their lead and ignore our fascist crimes is silly.
the fascist seem to have this all worked out...
destroy murder kill, then hide and nobody will do anything about it... move on to another country...

yah well, i think its time to the draw the line and say enough it enough.

its time for human compasion and sensability to have a win over brutality and senselessness


if france and spain choose to ignore that part of their past, then so be it... time does heal wounds...
and thats great for those who were victimized...
but what about the people did the victimizing?
they just go on to do it another day?


apparently Bush has destroyed any notion of 'justice' on both sides of the isle.

[cali]

39. you evidently have a severe reading comprehension problem

to wit: I said nothing at all about "status" I said nothing about the U.S. demanding that others be held accountable. I did not suggest we follow anyone's lead. I made a point of saying that we should prosecute.

You're just spouting cliches and ignoring history, reality and human nature. It's remarkably silly to say "it's time for human compassion and sensibility to have a win over brutality and senselessness." Why? Because that's ignoring the reality of the human animal.

[omega minimo]

83. Speaking of "drip drip drip" the venom is palpable. Let the DUer have their say and quit

pretending your answer is countering their lack of replying to your post the way you demand or else!! be subjected to your denouncements.


Really shabby.

[cali]

161. oh for pity's sake.

take your feeble, petty and ugly little vendetta elsewhere. it's remarkably shabby, dishonest and sooo pathetic. YOU drip venom and hate. reflect on it.

[omega minimo]

166. Your behavior is reflected to you and then you reverse to inflict it more on others.

The "vendetta" is yours. An objective read of your reply requires no familiarity with your M.O. It's everpresent.

It would be a shame if your "venom and hate" scared that poster enough to shut up. :hi:

[snowdays]

26. Until this all comes out, our country will not move

forward on this as Obama wants. He kicked the can down the street--now we have this.

[cali]

48. not necessarily true.

in fact many countries do move on without prosecuting their own for torture. Is Spain stuck in a Franco mode? No. Did they ever investigate and prosecute Franco era torture and mass murder? No. And there are many more examples. I'm for prosecuting, but against bad arguments as why to prosecute.

[EFerrari]

56. Obama doesn't the choice to ignore torture. n/t

[Spazito]

16. What a surprise coming from Turley - NOT...

This has been his modus operandi from the beginning, slanting his opinions toward attacking the Dems as opposed to simply stating the facts around torture and the law. He has NO credibility, imo.

[omega minimo]

17. Is this why Impeachment was "Off The Table"?

[snowdays]

27. She was one of those who said Lets move forward a few

years ago. Sweep it under the carpet is more like it. But those big lumps under the carpet are very visible.

[Jennicut]

23. Isn't Turley a libertarian? He really has no love for Dems either.

Torture is torture and Pelosi is an idiot. But who cares about her right now? Lets at the very least go after the Bush criminals first.

[Two Americas]

32. the problem with that

Between us and the perpetrators stand Democratic party politicians. I wish that were not true, and it is unfortunate.

[madmom]

35. How about we go after the more serious crime of torture first. Because

if we can't convict them of that, there is nothing to charge the dems with at all.If there were no crime how can there be an accomplice?:shrug:

[EFerrari]

73. It's not helpful for Turley to help inflate this political distraction.

I largely agree with him on what Pelosi and others did and are doing. But amplifying the focus on that piece of it does not get us closer to a trial. On the contrary, if anything it just makes key leaders more defensive. That's counterproductive.

[ShortnFiery]

81. No, GOOD democratic leaders would not default to the defensive, but openly express humility

and regret over these atrocities. Hell, they might even get re-elected if they could ADMIT to being afraid.

We deserve leaders with MORAL COURAGE and not those only interested in "going along to get along."

That's (Lack of Spine) been the problem with Our Democratic Leadership since 2000. Reid could have FILIBUSTERED a number of bills but he was "afraid."

Look to today? The republicans are obnoxious and anti-intellectual, but they sure as shit don't back down.

We need leaders with sound moral compasses who don't back down.

Investigate and prosecute ... but realize that Our Democratic Leadership did NOT serve us well and it may be time to "Clean House" in their next democratic Primary Challenges. :thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

92. I don't disagree with any of that. But the group in office now is what it is

and that's the group of people who will be dealing with this situation.

[The Magistrate]

149. It Helps Keep Turley On The Air, Ma'am, And That Is His Chief Interest

[EFerrari]

151. I agree and there's nothing useful in what he's doing.

He doesn't offer any new information and he doesn't propose a real way forward. It's just latching onto the Republican outrage of the moment to keep himself in circulation. Which is ironic insofar as he accuses others of being self-serving.

There is a social justice critique one could make about the Speaker that would serve to inform us and to get us focused on the next step. There is even a political critique that could be made about Congressional Democratic leaders avoiding so much criminality during the Bush Disaster and leaving the whole mess for Obama to deal with once in office.

He doesn't do either.

[The Magistrate]

154. You State The Matter Very Well, Ma'am

[omega minimo]

192. One post nails what The Mag has been trying to say all afternoon.

:hi:

[HughMoran]

202. I tend to agree

It would be more productive if he offered a way forward here instead of simply talking in absolute "must, or else" terms.

[EFerrari]

208. Omg. You and I and The Magistrate agreed all on the same day.

I should have bought a lottery ticket!

lol

[HughMoran]

214. I almost mentioned that

...but I wanted to keep my response strictly "professional" - lol.

[robdogbucky]

74. As I recall

just a week or so ago when this issue first arose amidst the other hot potato at the time in DC, the Jane Harman wiretap/AIPAC/coverup/spy scandal, the pubs threatened (no, promised) that as a result of the "torture memos," being released, that if the Dems followed this up at all, they (the pubs) would make sure that any and all involvement in the issue by past Dem administrations would be disclosed and examined. Then the swine flu epidemic that wasn't grabbed headlines for a week and whooosh, it is all changed. No more Hartman/AIPAC scandal, with charges quietly dismissed and Hartman down the memory hole. Torture is still percolating, with the pubs at defcon level orange in counter-acting the allegations/impending punishments.

Here we are.

This is really smoke/mirrors to get everone to back off. This is vintage Rovian playbook stuff. This is part of a concerted effort of deflection and misdirection to get the issue buried, hopefully with the public's acquiescence in doing so. Sure helps to get Dems arguing with Dems about anything, and especially when it is something that deflects attention from the real underlying issue. Sure helps to have DINOs available with egg on their collective faces to serve that purpose every time they need it. Almost makes one wonder which side people are really on?

Didn't Bush say we don't torture? Didn't they (Cheney and others) then say that waterboarding is not so bad, just like a fraternity prank or only "harsh interrogation," technique. Then didn't they say they only used it 3 times. Wasn't it then disclosed that it was widely used and that prisoners died from it? If it was right and legal and effective, why did they have to offshore it to various banana republic types with no extradition, etc.?

This thing is sure progressing down the path isn't it?

I haven't read all the responses on this thread, only the headers from the exchange between The Magistrate and Who's It, so if things are repeated here I apologize. There is so much material published every day here on DU that one has to really scramble to collect and archive data if they need to and one has to follow the progression of threads as they pass off of page one if one wants to track stuff. That and keeping up with all the new info. Whew!

I just recall this current scenario of having everyone discussing Pelosi all weekend instead of the underlying war crimes completely fits the threatened strategy announced a couple of weeks ago.

Hang the evil-doers now, preferably after they are tortured to get all the gruesome details, then give a slap on the wrist to those that knew but claim national security, professional duties, etc., for keeping their mouths shut and their conscience cloudy. Seems fair in relation to the severity of the opposing alleged offenses/omissions.


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[Occam Bandage]

115. Turley seems to be doing everything he can to ensure justice is not served.

There can be no prosecutions if people believe "eh, they're all complicit." I doubt Turley would be getting airtime if he were to restrict his attacks to people who have acted criminally, rather than to people who criminals claim may have been told about some aspects of crimes.

[ShortnFiery]

118. Funny, I see it the opposite. He's keeping this discussion open. Because he's NOT a partisan

on either side, he says stuff that WE, AS DEMOCRATS either don't like or flatly disagree ... or maybe we just feel uncomfortable with?

Hey, I like both Pelosi and Reid as PEOPLE. But no one would deny that they have FAILED as leaders many times since 2000?

They should be humble or prepared to be unseated. :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

144. Pelosi and Reid are not going to be "unseated."

Each have been unpopular among the netroots since attaining their respective posts. Both are very popular among the electorate to whom they are responsible, and both win Democratic votes handily. Reid's only challenge would come from a right-wing conservative. Pelosi ain't goin' anywhere. And both are quite popular among their respective caucuses (they actually do a very good job at the nuts and bolts of governing, as terrible as they are at enacting the netroots agenda), so they aren't leaving their leadership posts, either.

The only thing Turley is doing is spreading the CIA's story of events. I'm surprised so many DUers would be so gullible as to think that the CIA has justice (and not covering their own asses by blaming others) at heart.

[The Magistrate]

148. That Is So, Sir, The Latter Particularly

[ShortnFiery]

239. It's not just the netroots who are disgusted with our Congressional "Leadership."

I can hope and pray ... plus email my congress critters. ... They are on their way OUT lest the party goes down with them.

[TheKentuckian]

194. Weeds

None have patience for them in their gardens. So, some pull them up by the roots and protect the tomatoes and green beans while others would let the garden be overtaken while they work to wipe out all weeds now and forever. Both have the same goal but I'm pretty sure we'd go hungry waiting on the latter lot.

[DainBramaged]

203. So, did anyone win the sparring match in this thread?

[EFerrari]

204. I don't know but The Magistrate and I agreed on something --

that's five times in nearly five years. :)

[omega minimo]

206. ambiguity reigns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5623273&mesg_id=5626716

[Bonobo]

215. I like the way you referred to Magistrate as "Ma'am" though you know he is a man.

It says a lot that you think it is offensive to refer to a person as woman.

[omega minimo]

219. You can't assume the gender or assume I know the gender. Nor does "he" re: others. Thank you.

Bonobo I hope you are doing well. :thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

229. important issues, no?

You do not think that these are important issues? You do not think this discussion is valuable?

[leftstreet]

231. I don't mind seeing DUers in heated arguments when the stakes are so high

Lots of good reading on this thread, no matter how uncomfortable some people are with the subject.

I'd rather see it debated here than just about anywhere else.

:thumbsup:

[livefreest]

209. WHO IN THIS WORLD AND IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS STILL BELIEVES ANYTHING SAID BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION

or any official they appointed. THEY HAVE A LONG RECORD OF PROVEN LIES. those documents leaked by some one inside CIA don't contradict Nancy Pelosi and are actually too vague for documents by the CIA IMHO.

[Honeycombe8]

217. You got THAT right! Naive posters who are basing arguments on Republicans? Go figure!

Good post.

[Enrique]

213. Turley was a CHUMP when he fell for the Clinton impeachment

biggest most obvious piece of crap abuse of the legal system, essentially using the impeachment process to execute a coup, and a legal scholar Turley legitimizes it.

Thankfully ALL the Democrats in the House were less CHUMPS than Turley, and they all voted against it, and Turley's impeachment was revealed as a partisan affair.

[ShortnFiery]

238. Yes, Clinton was a pure as the driven snow ... TURLEY made him LIE under oath.

:crazy:

[mmonk]

240. Absolutely. Otherwise, how did we get to this?

[omega minimo]

243. Don't ask

:yoiks:

"These very same Democratic members, particularly Pelosi, blocked past efforts to investigate the torture allegations and blocked any effort to look into impeachment due to the commission of war crimes. It is now clear (as some of us have been saying for years) that these investigations would have revealed the involvement of Democratic members."