How much is Dick Cheney paying the media to somehow portray him as Barack Obama's debating partner. Excuse me, but we already had the debate back in November and Cheney's team got crushed. Or was I just imagining all that?
Nevertheless, there was day-long panting about the Obama-Cheney face off. The only thing more absurd (and disgruntling) is the way Nobody Newt has also been so recently inflated.
Except for the part about not releasing the newest torture photos, I really thought Obama's speech was inspirational. Refreshing it was to hear a president give an entire, eloquent address dedicated to how practially and morally useless is the use of torture. Disgusting, also, that Obama had to make the effort he did to allay fears on shutting down Gitmo thanks to the rabid fear-mongering by the Republicans and the spineless pandering of all but six senate Dems who also voted to deny funds for the prison camp shutdown.
There was also some pretty spiffy iconography attached to today's dueling speeches. Obama delivered his at the National Archives standing in front of a faded document known as The Constituion.
Cheney, for his part, appeared in front of a cherry-picked audience a few blocks away in the right-wing ideological hothouse known, preposterously, as The American Enterprise Institute.
It might as well been delivered on the Starship Enterprise.
As David Corn notes, The former Veep's spiel sounded like it was coming from Mars. An unabashed endorsement of torture, laced with the usual industrial-strength dose of fear, Cheney merely retreaded many of the same, hollow arguments that --in the final days-- he lost even inside his own administration.
The topper was Cheney's opening snarl. Forced to wait till Obama finished his speech so he could cadge screen time, he opened with a crack that Obama obviously had served in the Senate because in the House there's a 5 minute limit to speeches.
Obama's speech was ten pages long. Dick's was 16.
Pity the poor Republicans. Their primary spokesman is the sneering, snarling former V.P. who racks up an anemic 37% favorability rating (just about 1/2 that of Obama). Or is it the bobbing Boss Limbaugh? Or the crackpot Palin? Or, wait, maybe it's the guy whose name has become a national punchline, Michael Steele.
John McCain, come back. All is forgiven.
----------------------------
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube
This entry was posted
on Thursday, May 21st, 2009 at 9:02 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
This sentence:
Except for the part about now releasing the newest torture photos, I really thought Obama’s speech was inspirational.
Is now suppose to be not?
Nifty window.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
In all seriousness, it’s getting more than a bit tiring having Cheney impose his tired ass upon the public. This might be a more worthy critic of the Obama Administration
http://tinyurl.com/dg5nrj
And though I’d like to throw some rotten fruit and vegetables at him for playing footsie with Nasrallah, here’s this old cranky guy who actually sometimes still has something worthwhile to say
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/1046/noam_chomsky_why_we_cant_see_t/
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090521/pl_mcclatchy/3237981
You’re neglecting to point out that everything Cheney said was a lie and that his sources actually refute his “facts.” Although, I guess that’s not really necessary to point out. Cheney’s never told a truth in his life.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 am
I’m kind of surprised that you didn’t mention that part about preventive detention.
I’m sufficiently dismayed about not dealing with what has been done in our name to make up for 10 people who are willing to shrug because, as Peggy Noonan said, life has mysteries. But, I’m horrified by the idea that we would codify these human rights injustices going forward.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
Worse, Liz Cheney was treated like something other than a lyiing sack of shit – in fact like royalty – on all of the morning cable news shows. Incredible, because when she opens her mouth you can see her dad’s ass. Literally can’t discuss this issue truthfully, even from “her” side. Cheney’s speech was The Big Lie – as has been proven by actual experienced interrogators involved in this process. This entire episode is scandalous and the fact that Cheney’s speech was broadcast live is scandalous. Was Al Gore’s remarkably prescient speech opposing Bush’s invasion of Iraq treated with this degree of deference and seriousness by the news clowns ? And Gore wasn’t primarily angling to keep himself out of the dock…
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Great piece!
Funny stuff
Thanks
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
The absurdity of the news clowns:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018303.php
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Listener, I’ve been wrestling with the preventive detention issue myself and I wish I had a little better understanding of what is actually going to happen. I think Obama is only talking about preventive detention for those already stationed at Guantanamo that we can’t convict of anything because the fools previously in charge decided that they’d torture these guys and worry about the law later. If it’s only about these guys, then it’s a tough problem. If you have real terrorists and evidence of their crimes then you can’t, politically or ethically, let them go. On the other hand, the evidence needed to convict these guys is tainted and inadmissible in court unless you make some very undesirable changes to our legal system. It’s all very messy and whether or not you think Obama made the right call, I don’t think there’s an easy answer.
More troubling to me is the continuation of military tribunals with secret evidence. That just seems like bad stuff.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
I have the same view and same issues as Mavis. I dont think he was talking about some ominous preventive detention but rather how to best deal with the several dozen Guantanamo leftovers that cannot be sent elsewhere (cuz no one wants them), who ARE combatants, and who have been so abused they cannot be put on trial. Listener, What would u do if u were president? Where would u put these folks? What would you do with them and also, legimately, think about the political future?
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
“I don’t think there’s an easy answer.”
There isn’t. I’m glad that folks such as Rachel Maddow and Glenn Greenwald are making their case – but I’m also glad neither one is in charge of anything…
The torture issue is another matter, and we have plenty of evidence from insiders – including Dennis Blair, who is being deliberately misrepresented by the disingenuous sacks of dog-mess on the right, but more importantly by professional interrogators actually involved in dealing with the terrorists in question – that torture isn’t just illegal and immoral, it’s a dumb-ass strategy open to the most blatant abuse (as in Cheney’s despicable attempt to evoke false confessions about al Qaeda/Saddam ties).
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
That should have read “from professional interrogators” not “by”.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Dick Cheney is the gift that keeps on giving.
For Obama.
But, yes, it is very sad, in fact, quite preposterous, that the Senate is so bizarre on the question of Gitmo prisoners.
NOBODY escapes from a SuperMax prison.
And these folks, lest we forget, are only suspects.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
As David Brooks points out today in the NYTs, Cheney is packaging his beef as being with Obama, but it’s equally with the second half of the Bush administration when DeadEye Dick was largely reined in and side-tracked from being the top policy dog, and his equally incompetent pal, Rumsfeld, was disgraced and finally discharged. Cheney is defending not simply “the Bush administration,” but the Bush administration at its very worst when the most damaging decisions were being driven by Cheney’s office. He’s defending a policy “menu” and a cast of characters that had largely been abandoned as disastrous to national security by 2005-2006. ( It’s telling that even Gen. Petraeus “Davie-come-lately” strategy in Iraq, that had some undeniable success in negotiating with the Sunni “terrorists” to isolate al Qaeda, was concocted completely outside of the Bush administration itself and presented to the CinC as a desperate last gamble after his administration had immersed themselves waist-deep in an “epic fail.” )
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Where’s the exit plan?!!!
Joe Biden says decision to shut Guantanamo was “like opening Pandora’s Box”
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Sen. Bradley is exactly right: Cheney is the perfect foil for Obama, and Axelrod and crew know it.
This was no coincidence, and the fact that the talking heads were “debating” who won, misses the point completely.
When we are talking about an Obama-Cheney match-up, Obama has already won.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Sadly, my political titles max out at senior advisor.
As I am sure you know …
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
… Incidentally, Marc should get our mutual webmaster to advance the clock to reflect Daylight Savings Time.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Woody, here, is citing one of the most determinedly obtuse journalists in Britain. Who, of course, seriously distorts what Biden said.
Which it pains me to say, as an Anglophile and Brit a couple of centuries removed …
>Woody Says:
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Where’s the exit plan?!!!
Joe Biden says decision to shut Guantanamo was “like opening Pandora’s Box”
So will Obama fulfill his vow – announced amid great fanfare in an executive order on day two of his presidency – to close the facility by January 2010? “I think so,” Biden responded, according to Newsweek’s Holly Bailey.
So perhaps he will. Or perhaps not. We’ll see.
Biden continued: “But, look, what the president said is that this is going to be hard. It’s like opening Pandora’s Box. We don’t know what’s inside the box.”
He also said that “to the best of my knowledge” the number of prisoners “who are a real danger who are not able to returned or tried” has “not been established” by the Obama administration.
So he basically just confirmed his predecessor Dick Cheney’s analysis that the decision was taken “with little deliberation, and no plan”.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/22/mancow-waterboarded-video_n_206906.html
Conservative radio host Mancow gets waterboarded to prove it’s not torture. Turns out, it is.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
CHENEY’S WISE WORDS
- – -
Watch at least the first 35 seconds of this video.
Rachel Maddow: A Tale of Two Speeches…by Obama…in the same speech
One, a proclamaton of American values.
Another, a radical new claim of Presidential power.
- – -
Meanwhile, reg visited the state of Washington under an assumed name.
It must have been a short puppet show.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
It’s Daylight Savings Time???
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Actually, Cheney could have trimmed his speech to just one sentence: “On our watch, [al Qaeda] hit this country in the single greatest attack on our soil in its history.”
Woody, keep perpetuating the lies.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
So, let’s get the truth out.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Thanks, Woody. I knew I could count on you. This validates everything Cheney’s said and done.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I was waterboarded in the Navy.
Obviously, it is torture, as John McCain has pointed out. Only clowns claim it is not.
>Howie Says:
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/22/mancow-waterboarded-video_n_206906.html
Conservative radio host Mancow gets waterboarded to prove it’s not torture. Turns out, it is.
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“I was waterboarded in the Navy.”
Really? Whatever happened to simple flogging?
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Great Homoerotic blogging, Woody !
We’re fascinated by your obsessions…
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Marc Cooper: “Listener, What would u do …Where would u put these folks?”
Why put them on KPFK, of course… each one should have their own time slot.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
Thank god he didn’t have to put out his cigarette:
http://www.npr.org/templates/common/image_enlargement.php?imageResId=15895650&imageStoryId=15886834
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:25 am
reg, that article wasn’t about homos, unless you’re sharing us with something not in it.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
When you “share” articles about men waving their genitals, I’m afraid it’s evidence of your homoerotic obsessions…
May 24th, 2009 at 11:24 am
reg, it’s not my obsession but my observation about yours. You would love to shift the focus away from you and on to me, but your estrogen-filled rantings give you away. In fact, you were drawn to this topic by the subject title itself.
- – -
Regarding the real subject of the post:
Obama gets schooled on terror: Cheney bests him in speech duel — by stickiing to the facts
- – -
Why does Obama hate children?
Heart-ache: White House cancels kids’ tour to host Steelers
May 24th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Analysis: Obama debating Cheney is a plus for GOP
May 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
You’re as incoherent as ever…your comment makes absolutely no sense except as some weird Rorshach of a creepy little homophobe.
Kindly go to hell…sooner rather than later.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Will Media Notice Powell Defended Bush and Agreed With Cheney?
- – -
Homophobe, reg? I’m not afriad of homosexuals. It’s just that I detest yours and their sins.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
reg, I caught your rant about Cheney. It’s your typical emotional, poor taste argument.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
We’re all impressed with your contributions…
May 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Well. My longish response to Mavis and Marc has been caught in moderation for over 24 hours. An email exchange with Marc suggested he would try to release it, but the release was not assured. I’m assuming that it’s length and links might have been problematic. Who really knows. Since I saved it going in, I can chop it up and re-submit it in parts. We’ll see how that goes.
May 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I.
Obama spoke of five categories of people:
To be clear, when you write,
I assume you are referring to this 5th category.
May 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
II.
To address the specific point of only, I would counter with this observation from Spencer Ackerman writing about the phenomena of torture.
Why do you assume that this migration wouldn’t occur in relation to preventive detention?
May 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
III.
Given reports such as this one,
from where do you get your certainty?
May 24th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
IV.
This is another assumption for which there isn’t a lot of explicit support. I grant that’s what people have been sold; it is the theme our media and the GOP seem to pound but, again I ask, what makes you so certain?
And, even if your premise is correct, that:
As Ben Wizner asks in this interview, if the taint is so severe that it is unreliable for criminal conviction, why is it sufficiently reliable to detain someone indefinitely?
May 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
V.
And, we should detain them forever – somewhere – because,
Except, Some Americans Do Want Terrorists In Their Communities. Or, if you’re assuming that the attempt at conviction failed and a jury acquitted, why do you assume these illegal aliens would be released to the streets where our neighbors to the south are not? And, rather than remanding them to some camp we currently operate for undocumented Mexican workers, why cannot they be returned to their home country, or to wherever we picked them up (with reparations for their trouble)?
May 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
VI.
I agree with you Mavis. The military commissions are equally troubling. Troubling in many of the same ways that preventative detention is troubling. Wizner makes this observation in the interview I referenced. These categories are delineated not based on conduct or behavior of the individual, but on the quality of evidence we have against them. This is the worst kind of forum shopping which is explicitly intended to favor the prosecution. It’s a process enacted to obtain a preordained outcome. And, it begs a follow up question: Under this category scheme, if the prosecution actually felt it could get a conviction in federal court, the individual indicted, but jury acquits. If the government honestly believes the accused is dangerous does the government detain anyway? Even in the face of an acquittal?
Anticipating the assertion that these individuals are automatically dangerous because they would return to haunt us at their first opportunity,
NYT Quietly Walks Back Story On Detainees’ ‘Return’ To Jihad
May 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
VII.
Let me be clear about what I believe is happening here. Yes, the Bush administration screwed up to a level I never imagined in my wildest dreams they could screw up. They FUBAR’d government. But, we have Jack Goldsmith of Bush OLC fame writing in The New Republic that Obama is about to accomplish what Bush failed to do. Goldsmith claims that Bush’s failing with regard to executive power was he simply took the power he wanted and damned any premise of appealing to law [With the single exception being Yoo and Bybee’s torture memos. And, if that jury rigging the process to justify a preordained outcome doesn’t resonate for you at this juncture, nothing I can say will make it apparent.] Obama, on the other hand is about to out-Bush Bush by inscribing this assault on the Constitution (exempting habeas corpus) into law. By obtaining congressional support, Obama is actually strengthening Bush’s claim to executive power.
May 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
VIII.
So, yeah, despite Reg’s snide aside, I think Greenwald is correct to argue,
May 24th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
IX. / Final
I would point to one final item. If all this weren’t bad enough, and to my thinking it is, we have this from TPM.
May 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Since I composed my response to Mavis and Marc a number of other responses to Obama’s “preventive infinite detention” have been written. Marcy Wheeler at Firedog Lake is the individual who found the footnotes in the memos suggesting that some detainees had been waterboarded near/over 100 times. I say she has cred. The NYT agreed and cited her. She observes,
May 24th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Listener,
Thanks for sticking with it. It was worth it.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
No, Randy. Thank you for pressing through it and letting me know that you did. Now it was worth it for me, too.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I for one have had it. We have GOT to get Reg and Woody a room. Marriott or Motel 6, guys?
May 24th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
reg: We’re all impressed with your contributions…
At least my contributions had references related to the subject.
- – -
Listener, Marc’s comment filter typically limits a comment to having no more than three links. Sometimes there is a magic word that will block them, too. In the past, that word was “socialist,” but he changed that when Obama was elected or the comments would have been cut in half.
- – -
qdpsteve, I’m more the Marriot type and reg is more the Motel 6 type, so we would never encounter each other – plus, unlike him, I’m into women. If you’ve never heard reg speak, imagine “Slobbering” Barney Frank, but more gay.
- – -
Now. while you guys are fixated on making things pleasant for terrorists….
Wow, that’ll teach ‘em!
Obama spends more time trying to please the radical left than in taking steps to insure our security.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:02 am
We know that our criminal justice system lets some guilty people go — for instance because incriminating evidence is suppressed due to rights violations by police. So why do people like Marc and Mavis think that it’s so all fired important that we not let these people go even though detaining them indefinitely without charge violates the most basic principle of our legal system? It’s because these detainees have the bogeyman in them! Ugga booga terrorist ugga booga! They could “return to the battlefield” and we’ll all be doomed!!!
If you have real terrorists and evidence of their crimes then you can’t, politically or ethically, let them go.
Yes you fucking well can. Don’t let your irrational fear of the bogeyman make you complicit in a crime against humanity greater than any committed by any of these detainees.
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.” — Magna Carta, 1215
May 25th, 2009 at 6:40 am
In coming back to grab a link I hadn’t saved, I find that the link I offered to Spencer Ackerman fails.
The corrected link is here.
And, if that fails:
http://washingtonindependent.com/44162/more-cheney-truth-squaddery
Or, http://preview.tinyurl.com/q2mub9
One of ‘em is bound to work in spite of me!
May 25th, 2009 at 7:13 am
“we”?
Dicks.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:32 am
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-etw-onthemedia21-2009may21,0,7625343.column
NYT bashing, well justified
May 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Nice Memorial Day column. Oh, that’s right. The Left loathes the military.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Woody, since you saw fit to post a hatemongering screed against people who, unlike you, served our country in uniform over at WitnessLA, just shut the fuck up with your idiot comments about who “loathes the military.” You’re in the same league with the brain-dead morons of the Ku Klux Klan, ranting against the right of gay people to serve openly in the military. Go To Hell. Especially on a day when we honor those who have served their country in uniform.
(Now show your ass with your usual bullshit – since that’s all you’ve got, little bigot. )
May 25th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I think it’s entirely possible that we fail our military personnel. And, I think we have absolutely dishonored our war dead over the past decade.
The oath for United States citizenship:
The oath of the President of the United States:
The oath for US military enlistment:
In each and every case, the oath is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. When we as citizens allow our President and our representatives to diminish the rights and protections inscribed in the Constitution, we demean and diminish the honor of our war dead. We reduce their ultimate sacrifice to that which feeds the shallow ambitions of politics and political actors. Failing to vigorously condemn and resist assaults to our Constitution by excusing the political choices which violate it on some premise that it keeps us safe ought to make us weep with shame. As best I can tell, our military has upheld their oath with honor. It’s unfortunate the same cannot be said for the rest of us; left or right.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“Obama’s political skills, combined with his status as a Democrat, is strengthening Bush/Cheney terrorism policies and solidifying them further”
This is an utterly absurd claim on the face of it, and speaks precisely to why I’m glad Glenn Greenwald is a gadfly and not in any way responsible for policy.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20090525
May 26th, 2009 at 6:26 am
reg, when the best that you have is to associate me with Nazis and the Klan, then you have worse than nothing. It would make more sense for you to be the one to shut-up.
- – -
Now, regarding my statement above regarding Obama’s pitiful response to Korea’s nuclear blast and missile test….
A perspective from the Left (note the date):
May 20, 2009
The Huffington Post
Update: John Bolton Still Crazy
Now, roll forward four days.
May 24, 2008
Headline: “Defying world powers, N. Korea conducts nuke test “
Someone’s crazy, but it’s not John Bolton.
- – -
Meanwhile, Obama honors America’s soldiers killed while serving our nation:
On Golf Course, President Obama Pauses for Moment of Silent Prayer
Our men and women died for Obama’s right to play golf on Memorial Day. However, no penalty stroke was assessed, as the President didn’t delay play for his faux respect.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Please don’t feed the troll
May 26th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Since Greenwald [1] is merely a gadfly, I should probably dismiss his assessment on this as well.
Especially, since only a gadfly would concern themselves with what that pesky document, that is not a suicide pact, actually [2] says. After all, only a gadfly like Greenwald could possibly care about a SCOTUS selection.
Perhaps, since Greenwald is so utterly shallow as a political observer, someone who has an issue with Greenwald’s take on Obama with respect to Bush policies could explain how Goldsmith [3] can pen the following with any degree of accuracy.
Hmm. It does seem that a careful attention to process and presentation could be considered attributes of a skilled politician.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/oehc7q
[2] http://tinyurl.com/pnrerg
[3] http://tinyurl.com/o3urc8
______
My sincere apologies to all for the broken links in the text I’ve submitted previously. I thought maybe I’d forgotten how to do hyperlinks altogether. Instead, I seem to have encountered a curious interplay between quotation marks and some urls. Formatted identically, some work, and others don’t.
Initially, I thought the problem was an artifact of the composer screen I had used. But, in taking this specific comment, composed in Marc’s reply screen, to a different site with a preview feature, only two of the three hyperlinks displayed as expected. For some reason, the third needed to have the closing set of quotation marks removed for the hyperlink to display the way it should. And, that is also the case for all of the previous links which fail. That clearly makes no sense – to me, anyway.
Having been spoofed on more than one occasion, one time with disastrous consequences, I’m no fan of tinyurl. But, I also don’t want to screw up the way Marc’s page displays on various browsers.
Without cluttering the thread further with corrected links, the links which fail, can (in Firefox) be cured by clicking on them, and then removing the trailing quotation mark in the url/address window. I imagine that strategy will in other browsers as well.
Again, I regret the difficulty.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:05 am
I don’t dismiss everything Greenwald says, but – per what I quoted – he can be wildly over the top. Sorry if that fact offends your tender sensibilities. I notice you didn’t dispute my comment. Only used it to set up some straw men…
May 26th, 2009 at 7:08 am
“how Goldsmith [3] can pen the following with any degree of accuracy.”
What Goldsmith “pens” isn’t accurate IMHO, so I have no problem noting that Greenwald is hysterical in some of his commentary.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Incidentally, I disagree with Greenwald that Sotomayer was a particularly daring or brave choice for Obama. It was a politically shrewd choice of a moderately liberal justice. Sotomayer is a decent replacement for Souter since, ironically, she was originally sent to the bench by GHWB, but not a great victory for “the left”. I agree that she’s a fine choice – and that the whispers against her were ridiculous. But to give Obama a lot of credit for standing against the ridiculous is, IMHO, just as silly as making claims that he’s “strengthening” the Bush/Cheney “WOT” regime.
Yeah, I guess you hit it on the head when you referred to Greenwald as shallow. Verbose and intense – but shallow.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:43 am
The Randy Dictionary:
Troll = Conservatives who aren’t intimidated by the lunatic left into shutting-up.
Please don’t respond to my comments, though. Any attempt to refute truth and logic wastes time.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:52 am
I notice you didn’t dispute my comment.
Actually, I think I did. Apparently, you didn’t distinguish between Goldsmith making the claim, and Greenwald paraphrasing him. And, if you disagree with Goldsmith, then it would seem you haven’t read his piece in TNR. I can fully understand why not. It’s an unpleasant read for an Obama supporter.
Speaking of straw men, where did Greenwald characterize Obama’s pick as daring or brave. I searched his entire column for those two words and couldn’t find either one of them.
As for shallow, I’m glad I characterized your assessment accurately. Thanks for confirming it.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:42 am
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
May 26th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Allow me to elaborate.
You have nary an inkling about truth and logic. Your idea of debate is to make sweeping generalizations about those who disagree with you while grossly misrepresenting their positions.
You whine consistently about your perceived sense of mistreatment of your kind and the language used by others, yet you, with elan, use racist terms like “darkie” or abusive terms like “Stumpy” to characterize people solely for the purposes of inflaming others.
As for logic, the overwhelming majority of your responses are merely tu quoque reactions, a common logical fallacy. When not engaging in tu quoque you erect strawmen. When pressed for information to back up your claims, in typically craven fashion, you claim that you don’t have time or otherwise can’t be bothered.
And we are supposed to take you seriously? You’re not a conservative, you’re a homunculus, more Gollum-like than you can imagine.
You need to disabuse yourself
May 26th, 2009 at 10:02 am
You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that your side has all the answers. Read or reread Oedipus Rex and rememebr the core message: Know thyself.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I read most of Goldsmith’s piece. So what ? I have to agree with Glenn Greenwald and Goldsmith ? Sorry…
You started this by disparaging my characterization of Greenwald as a “gadfly.” Sorry – he’s the Messiah !!!
May 26th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Also, if you agree with that Greenwald quote, you totally undermine your credibility. I don’t wholly endorse what Obama has done to correct this situation, but I KNOW that’s a completely asinine perception, rooted in moral vanity.
Glenn Greenwald ? Moral vanity ? Who knew ?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Greenwald on Obama/Sotomayer: “At his best, Obama ignores and is even willing to act contrary to the standard establishment Washington voices and mentality that have corrupted our political culture for so long. His choice of Sotomayor is a prime example of his doing exactly that, and for that reason alone, ought to be commended.”
I think – or at least hope – this isn’t Obama “at his best” but at his baseline so far as judicial appointments are concerned. He nominated a moderate liberal with a very, very politically advantageous personal profile. He didn’t nominate – on the face of the appointment, since these appointees trajectories are hard to predict – another justice obviously in the mold of a Marshall or a Douglas, which would have truly “upended the standard establishment Washington voices and mentality that have corrupted our political culture for so long .” Maybe she’ll surprise us…
May 26th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
In response to Randy: “ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ”
Please, how can I seriously accept an analysis of me from someone who isn’t half as smart?
May 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
The problem, Listener, I have with Goldsmith as in any way “definitive” is that his analysis of Obama rests a little too neatly on a paradigm he drew in his 2007 book and which was obviously waiting to be recycled.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Obama’s out-of-Iraq date may have just been moved back.
Army chief says US ready to be in Iraq 10 years
May 26th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20090525
May 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Listener, sorry I haven’t checked back for a few days. You clearly took some time here so I’ll try to offer a response.
I think we agree that categories 1, 3, and 4, are all fine. We are both troubled by category two: ongoing military tribunals for so called “enemy combatants.” The sticking point is category 5 – people, “who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.”
Who are these people? Are they guilty as charged? How do we know? These people, I think, are captured persons who the Obama administration still believes are guilty of crimes, but are impossible to prosecute in criminal courts because of Bush administration interrogation policies. When you don’t prosecute people openly it is easy (and right) to raise questions about their innocence. Additionally, given that some of the evidence we’re using to determine their guilt may have been gleaned via torture, we should be especially concerned about false convictions. We done fucked up our justice system and we have a legal and ethical mess on our hands. But some of these guys are certainly terrorists who should be locked up. Letting them go if some of the evidence came from torture is neither politically possible nor ethically tidy. There are holes aplenty, but you have to grapple with this underlying truth or you’re not offering a real answer.
You do offer some suggestions about what to do with these guys. One is the point about mitigation which I found a little confusing in the context of the bit you posted (and as you know the links didn’t function), but I took to mean that you think there might be some legal remedy where the courts pretend the torture didn’t happen or was legal or some such thing. That strikes me as terrible legal policy and I just can’t see it passing through the American judicial system. And I wouldn’t want it to.
The second solution, as proposed by the ACLU, is that the government tries them for offering “material support for terrorism.” Opining on the effectiveness of prosecution strategies is a little above my pay grade. The ACLU seems to be arguing that evidence needed to convict on the aforementioned charge is so flimsy that the feds could get a conviction for anybody with any amount of evidence, a necessary feature since the government couldn’t use the evidence collected through illegal interrogations. First off, I’m not sure that’s true. Second, trying tortured persons in American courts would almost certainly result in a trial about torture. This would be extremely dangerous if you’re trying to obtain a conviction.
The mitigation approach or the material support for terrorism charge could potentially be applied in military commissions. I don’t know enough about them to respond to that possibility, though I do know that I don’t like military trials and I have no interest in expanding the number of persons tried in that system.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Please, how can I seriously accept an analysis of me from someone who isn’t half as smart?
All the intellectual rigor of nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah. No doubt your thumbs were planted in your ears and your fingers splayed out as you thought of that response.
BTW, I’m still convinced that when you were born, they accidentally tossed out the baby and raised the afterbirth,
May 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
But some of these guys are certainly terrorists who should be locked up.
They should only be locked up if they are found guilty. To otherwise to to commit a crime against humanity. Sheesh.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Err, …
To do otherwise is to commit a crime against humanity.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
But some of these guys are certainly terrorists who should be locked up.
To repeat what I wrote above:
“Ugga booga terrorist ugga booga!”
We don’t declare that, if the government knows that someone is a serial rapist, they should be locked up even if the government can’t prove it in a court of law. Why is “terrorist” a special category? The answer is simple: brainwashing. People have been trained to respond to the word “terrorist” the way Pavlov trained his dogs to salivate when they heard a bell.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
And finally,
But some of these guys are certainly terrorists who should be locked up.
How do you know, and what exactly are their crimes that you so blithely characterize as “terrorist”?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.” — Magna Carta, 1215
The ‘free man’ this English Constitution was was referring to were unconvicted and unimprisoned Englishmen for godsake, passing out.
Not their fucking French, German, et al enemies
at the time you fool.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I took the time to civilly explain what I think is a difficult problem and your only response is to wave the Magna Carta and accuse me of using the word terrorism because I’m brainwashed (or perhaps a hired brainwasher – you’ll never know). Read my post again and answer seriously or fuck off.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Whoops. I thought passing whatever was listener. Stupid mistake. Sorry.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Randy Paul: BTW, I’m still convinced that when you were born, they accidentally tossed out the baby and raised the afterbirth.
Randy, do you write those hilarious lines for Bob Zagat on America’s Funniest Home Videos?
May 30th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Read my post again and answer seriously or fuck off.
You’re the one who hasn’t answered seriously. Again: when the state is are convinced that the accused is a rapist or a murderer, we let them go anyway if the state can’t prove it. Why is “terrorist” a special category? It’s not, other than as a Pavlovian-response-inducing brainwashing word; it doesn’t justify throwing away our entire judicial history, and sophistic blather about a “serious problem” doesn’t do so.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
accuse me of using the word terrorism because I’m brainwashed (or perhaps a hired brainwasher – you’ll never know)
That’s about as thick a characterization as you could come up with. I didn’t say anything about you using the word “terrorism” — we’re all using the word. It’s the way that you react to the word — you and many others — that reflects the brainwashing — brainwashing that is very evident and well documented, first with the use of the word “communism” and then the orchestrated switch to “terrorism” under the Reagan administration. You’re not the perpetrator, you’re a victim.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
You’re the one who hasn’t answered seriously.
And specifically to How do you know, and what exactly are their crimes that you so blithely characterize as “terrorist”? Me, I don’t know that “some of these guys are certainly terrorists who should be locked up” because I haven’t seen the evidence, and until that evidence is produced in a court of law and these guys are found guilty of the charges, it is incorrect, under our system of justice, that they “should be locked up”.