_________________________________________________________
This is exactly the kind of Longwood thinking you need to grow out of. The issue is not whether Pelosi was responsible for the torture.
We know who was responsible.
Bush.
So charge him and the lot of scoundrels who followed his illegal and immoral orders. Denounce the horrific actions, call for a full accounting, demand justice and let's see how it works out.
But how you can't shed yourself of Pelosi's cretinous crabwalking is telling. What she has done is --
1) sat on her hands despite knowledge of the torture (a testament to the fact that in 2002, it was no big deal for most Democrats and indeed for most Americans)
2) made political hay of morally decrying a policy she at best implicitly endorsed.
3) reach mendacity of such a level that the word "Nixonian" comes to mind
4) in her greatest desperation, shit on the CIA for having "lied" to her (a position, with Panetta's statement, she is currently parsing as well, to leave her "Bush, Bush, IT WASSSSSSSS BUSHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!").
Yet, what is your conclusion (and that of Yglesias)?
"Well, let's keep our eye on the (cake)."
What cake is that?
Apparently, not a full an complete revelation of the torture policy. Obama half-asses it, releasing some memos, but not all. For photos, now, not so much. Against any prosecutions, wait, not the prosecutions of the torturers, but the lawyers. And not the policymakers.
Apparently, not consistency. No profiles in courage needed for you.
Again, the game and the quarry (Bush) trumps any real belief in policy. Thus, "hey, hey, Pelosi is a side show."
So what? I mean, in order to get Hitler, we ignore the willing accomplice Nazis? Even when they act like they were against it all along?
I didn't think there was a more cowardly and soulless approach than prosecuting the middle men while ignoring Bush and Cheney, but damn if you haven't presented one: ignore the willing accomplices, the functionaries and the top dogs.
And let's get a couple of lawyers who wrote memos that I'm certain you, and Matt Yglesias, have not read.
Gay marriage - same deal. The tards that oppose it get all your condemnation and wrath, and any reach back to Bush and his ilk will do as text.
Obama?
"Well, Josh and Sam think now isn;t the time to take this one on."
8 comments:
Is it solely the responsibility of the Obama administration and democrats to bring Bush et al to justice? If the torture was so immorally outrageous, where are the righteous Republicans who are calling for Bush's head?
well, and non-partison truth commissions need to be saved for more important things, like blowjobs (tho to be fair to Marley I dont think he cared about Billy C's bj. Unlike the other "horrified" super-patriots.)
It is the responsibility of those who believe the torture to have been illegal to prosecute the illegality. I believe it to have been legal and proper (and even a little mild), as do most Republicans. Why is it upon they or I, then, to join such a sanctimonious and absurd cause as prosecuting torture?
Thus, the lines are drawn, as they should be.
If you want justice, pony up the political capital and prosecute, but good luck getting Obama and now, given her tarnished behavior, Pelosi. They're primarily interested in communicating just how bad they "feel" about it.
And don't half-ass it. The charges are properly brought against one man - Bush - not his travel secretary.
agreed on all points, including i doubt Obama will have the stones to do it.
BUT.
at what point does legal mechanism kick in? For instance, i don't care if someone buys weed. But the law says they should be punished. by someone. who?
side note - favorite travel secretary ever? COSTANZA!! :)
a bigger fear is the overstuffed, why-bother-cause-its-too-much closet of Bush ineptitude will result in an "aw, fuck it" approach, as I wondered here awhile back
http://xmastime.blogspot.com/2008/11/sometimes-i-wonder-if-bush-really-is.html
"Again, I really hafta give it to Bush - the sheer NUMBER of piles and messes he has left for his successor to work on is also THE REASON he cannot be held accountable for them. Amazing. Cap doffed!"
Xmastime
Preliminarily, if you want to charge Bush and Cheney and the rest of the Bund with a crime, it is incumbent upon you to identify the particular statute that was violated. Eric Holder won;t be able to put his finger on it, but you should have no issue.
And your "ineptitude" dodge is unavailing. They knew what they were doing when they "tortured" -- that's why the CIA requested a legal opinion from the DOJ. He left no mess on this issue. he okayed a policy with which you disagree, so vehemently that you - and not me, and not Obama - want to criminally charge Bush for his torture" policy.
Let's start with the statute.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html
hey, im not a lawyer; i have no idea if this is the statute. prolly not. my point is is a law broken a law broken, or only if someone is offended? ie have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? was it a fellow traveler that pulled you over, or a cop? at some point, shouldnt the US step in and take over this nonsense? Ive been saying all along that Obama doesnt have the guts to do it; but maybe a bigger question should be should he even have to?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html
Decent analysis of the law.
As for your question, fuck yes he should have to. You may wet your pants and wring your hands over it, but I supported the torture. And thus, as we do in America, there was a disagreement. If he thinks what I supported was criminal, and not just a disagreement over policy, than he damn well better pony up the goods.
Christ, your solicitousness for this guy is amazing. He opposes the policy, denigrates it, suggests that there can some selective prosecutions for it, and when it becomes an issue (for folks like me and Cheney don't just agree and immediately begin to atone), your focus is on the poor distraction of it all for Barack.
think about if my bf Edwards had won. sigh.
Post a Comment