_--------------------------------------------
I don't know how much more you want to go around on this on your blog, but here's a reply:
Xmastime, your reply is unintelligible. From what I can glean, other than the fact that you were drunk and eating while posting it, the only thing that is clear is that you want prosecution of EVERYBODY involve with torture, especially Bush and Cheney.
Fine. Go to it. Your beloved Obama, however, will not give you what you desire, because while he opposes things, as we are learning, his opposition often stems first and foremost from the political advantage he can glean from the act of opposition. Your faith in his sublime intelligence (you reference how smart he is so often that I'm beginning to wonder if you've confused him with Stephen Hawking) has you intuiting that there is always some smart play, some clever carom, that he is employing. Why? Because, as you said yourself, you have "faith". Faith is for gods and condoms, not politicians.
With the executive branch unwilling to prosecute the American Bund, that leaves Congress to investigate, and thus, Pelosi and her Truth Commission. The truth, as it turns out, is that Congress had no real beef with the torture, because those were the times, it wasn't that big a thing and, in fact, it isn't that big a thing save for breast-beating chumplestiltskins who actually believe rot like, 'It inflames the Arab Street" (a street that ignites upon the lighting of a mere cigarette by Shia LeBoeuf) and "It demeans us all in the eyes of the world" (and NFL Europe doesn't?) Pelosi is worse than the Torture administration because you don't see them pointing fingers or cutting deals. In fact, Cheney has flatly come out and said, "Bring it on, bitches. I'll shoot you in the face too." You may disagree with the policy, and you may snigger at his snarling visage, but he owns the act, then and now. Pelosi, however, was for it, didn't mind it, couldn't do anything about, was horrified by it, demands justice NOW, was never briefed, was briefed but the briefer only provided vowels, and, currently, she was lied to.
In conclusion, you create a bizarre fiction ("if we hafta play nice with some of the middlemen to get to Hitler . . .then that's the way the shit goes") that you and your diligent searchers for justice are just working up the ladder, from the Buchenwald camp guards to Himmler and on up.
"Nice work, Sipowicz."
Hey dummy. The kingpin has already said, "I'm the kingpin. I did it. It was me."
So have DOJ bring charges or have Congress call hearings and let's get it on.
But enough of the cozy bum-yummy with Mr. Wizard Obama, whose DOJ won't prosecute anyone, save a few lawyers, and in fact, won't even prosecute those guys, because the only way that stupid idea came up was because Mr. Wizard Obama decided to jettison the "prosecute no one" policy he had already decided upon because someone asked him a question and he was made uncomfortable.
And enough of the short-shrift to what Pelosi indicates. She is indicative of who will be searching to the "truth" on your behalf in an congressional investigation. If she is tarnished (and her recent actions are vomitous), then stop the "cake" business and shed yourself of that baggage pronto.
7 comments:
"Because, as you said yourself, you have "faith". Faith is for gods and condoms, not politicians."
isn't there a difference between "faith" and "blind faith"? As in right now I have faith that anything Obama does is carefully processed in a thoughtful, rational manner. Agree with him or dont agree with him, you cannot say different.
BUT.
If he goes wildly off the rails, I expect to get on his ass about it. As I said before HERE
http://xmastime.blogspot.com/2009/04/uginto-dudes.html;
Bush EARNED his opposition, times 100. Obama has not (YET)
When Obama acts accordingly and I blindly back him, you can discredit me as a zealot. but we aint near there yet.
I've never discredited you a zealot, only a narrow, poorly-read romantic with an ill-defined philosophy that, to the extent it is articulable, takes a back seat to emotions.
When you start to evaluate Obama on his own terms, for good or ill, and not through the prism of your Bush fetish and your personal needs, you - and this blog - will be better off.
The torture issue is simple. Just like gay marriage. You speak with authority, but the President you adore opposes two very fundamental and critical beliefs - some even call them core, moral precepts - that you espouse. He opposes prosecuting the criminals and he opposes letting a loving gay union being recognized by the state.
When Bush does it, I get it - he's an evil, stupid poorly trained monkey, and you're up there on him in a heartbeat. But when Obama does it, whoosh - Xmastime becomes Josh Lyman; very measured, very fair, fair understanding.
from Marley #1: "Other hot-button issues (gay marriage, abortion, stem-cells, gun control, etc . . . ) held and hold no interest for me."
you can not use an issue you do not care about to tie into what we're talking about here; neither one has to do with the other, and you know it. youre hoping I pounce with emotion, but i will not be baited! :)
unfortunately for you, i actually read what you've written.
youre better off in the second paragraph saying what you meant to say ("Obama is a fucking hardass closer to the GOP than to you, Xmas!!") than paradiddling round with emotional shit you're already ON RECORD saying you dont give a shit about.
I don't know how to say it any other way - what is relevant in any discussion is not what I or you "care" about.
My reference to gay marriage is not a statement for or against gay marriage, or an evaluation of its merits, or a statement that contradicts my earlier statement of non-interest (I don't care, really, but were it on a ballot in my state, I'd vote for it).
Rather, Obama's position on gay marriage is emblematic of a political style that is also evident in his approach to torture, and your response to his position is characteristic of a soft, gentle hypocrisy that is understandably employed in aid of the politicians you love.
This is obviously not a manner of discourse that is employed on Maddow or Hannity, where, in fact, some cheesedick can holler, "aha! I though you said you didn't care about gay marriage", and that would pass a substantive rebuttal.
For example, if you were criticizing Bush's secrecy on torture and then added that said secrecy was similarly a part of his style in the area of faith-based institution policy, it would not be much of a response for me to say "But you SAID you didn't care about faith-based instution policy!"
Capiche?
well, you could substitute "an issue i could be bothered to discuss"for "care" instead of taking 344 words to sound, ironically, like a hand-wringing half-a-fag...capped most faggy by "capiche."
ZZZING! Marley's a fag! :)
A fag who cannot (sob!) get married because of your President Bigot.
touché!
Post a Comment