Rahmbo: No Torture Prosecutions Of Any Kind

Rahmbo talks:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: The President has ruled out prosecutions of CIA officials who believed they were following the law. Does he believe the officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution? . . . [W]hat about those who devised the policies?

EMANUEL: [President Obama] believes that they . . . should not be prosecuted either. And it's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter, and I really recommend that people look at that full statement. Not the letter, the statement. In that second paragraph: This is not a time for retribution. It's a time for reflection. It is not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back, and in a sense of anger and retribution. . . .

Um, is it ok if we talk about it President Obama? Personally, as I have written before, I can accept this policy IF the President supports a full investigation via a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (even Fred Hiatt supports this idea.) That seems to not be in the cards.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Exhorts Cuba To Release Political Prisoners, Move To Democracy | Country Lights Up for 4/20 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    i can't. (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:44:46 PM EST
    I can accept this policy IF the President supports a full investigation via a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (even Fred Hiatt supports this idea.)

    i strongly urge mr. emanuel to use a dictionary, and look up the terms retribution and justice; the two are not mutually inclusive. retribution suggests a like-kind act, ie: waterboarding the author's of the memos. justice would be trying them under the laws of the land, and punishing them appropriately, should they be found guilty.

    for such a supposedly smart guy, mr. emanuel displays a distinct lack of intelligence.

    Rahm (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:56:37 PM EST
    is just parroting Obama's statement here. I guess neither one knows the difference between justice and retribution.

    No, they understand perfectly well, (none / 0) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:54:04 AM EST
    but they understand politics better.

    There's no groundswell of public indignation over these "interrogations," and the mantra, "there's been no attack since 9/11........." rules the day. Limbaugh, and the Republican noise machine, are the only voices being heard. Congressional Democrats have dutifully stayed mute (and moot.)

    Obama has won; he has fulfilled his campaign promise of bipartisanship. His constituency is the Republican Party, not the American people. He knows that Congress is spineless, the media is a cruel joke, and the public is consumed with trying to stay solvent.

    Obama Barack is exactly what many saw him to be, an empty vessel with no core principals,  just the best politician of our time.


    re international treaties & others (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:44:52 PM EST
    In addition to all the bad precedent we are setting, the refusal to prosecute known cases of torture seems to be
    1. a violation of one or more international treaties we have signed;
    2. a poor way for us to claim the moral high ground;
    3. a recruiting tool for Al-qaeda.

    If our reasoning for not prosecuting them is that they were "following orders," then, that gives justification to any other nation's intelligence service and military to make the same claim.

    All we are creating now is winner's justice.  If you lose in a war, the winner's prosecute you for war crimes.  If you win, you are immune!

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:55:07 PM EST
    did all the 11 dimensional chess players have exploding heads today? Is there a run on duct tape I wonder?

    Well, now everyone has their answer from the Obama administration: Torture is bad but no bad enough to hold anyone accountable for it.

    There will be no Truth and Reconcillation Commission. The Obama administration apparently believes you can't have it unless the GOP signs on and since none of them will you can let go of that hope.

    It appears so (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    What good would a (none / 0) (#16)
    by Catch 22 on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:35:02 PM EST
    Truth and Reconciliation Commission be anyway? If it is patterned after the S. Africa commissions it is a voluntary program with no guarantee of amnesty. Is Bush going to step forward for that? John Yoo? Cheney? Anyone in the CIA or military? Anyone at all?

    No Way!

    So what is the point? A bunch of camera hungry politicians in closed committee then mugging for the cameras on the steps of congress? Or maybe a released alleged terrorist by satellite camera phone from some undisclosed location somewhere near the Khyber Pass?

    It would be a waste of time. 30 seconds on Katie Couric if your lucky.

    For all of you who supported Obama in the primaries...

    Read 'em and weep.


    I doubt we will find out (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    But I am confident you would be wrong if the premise was tested.

    your confidence (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:10:39 AM EST
    But I am confident you would be wrong if the premise was tested.

    is seriously misplaced. the only legitimate way for this country to purge itself of these evil (yes, evil, there is no better word) men and their equally evil acts is to prosecute those that can be proven to have broken the law.

    the repudiation of the vile acts necessitates that those responsible for either committing them or providing the legal foundation for them be brought before the bar of justice, in public, and forced to explain why they thought such clearly illegal and immoral acts were ok.

    this is the only way to replenish the national coffers that were morally and ethically bankrupted by the bush administration.


    Chuckle (none / 0) (#52)
    by Catch 22 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    So you really think Bush, Yoo, Cheney, and those in the CIA would come forward and confess their sins without promise of immunity? Your 'confidence' is not reality based I'm afraid.

    Don't need them to (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    Then like I stated (none / 0) (#60)
    by Catch 22 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    What would be the point other than be another congressional circus act that got maybe 30 second on Katie Couric?

    You really have not made an argument as to what it would accomplish.

    And if it is a Truth and Reconciliation Act the where is the Reconciliation without the accused? Chuckle.


    What accomplishment can Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 02:51:08 PM EST
    claim as a result of deciding that no one should face prosecution?

    Are we really making judgments about whether people should be held accountable for their actions on the basis of how many rings the circus surrounding it will be?


    This is just not acceptable, in any way, (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:10:50 PM EST
    shape or form, and I believe that as people begin to reflect on the content of the torture memos, begin to understand what they mean, there is no way they are going to be able to move forward with a clear conscience.  

    Someone needs to ask the president what it means to not condone torture; I would like to know what not condoning torture means.  Does it mean that it is enough to institute a policy not to conduct torture?  Is condemnation alone enough to restore our stature as the world's greatest democracy?

    I don't think so.  I don't see how just words and speeches are enough to show who we are, or who we aspire to be.  I think you show condemnation by punishing those who are responsible for whatever it is that is being condemned.

    I thought I could not be more disgusted and heartsick after all that had happened during the Bush years, but I have to say that hearing that Obama does not intend to do more than just issue statements and give speeches and talk about moving forward just rips a hole in my heart.

    This is just so, so wrong.

    But will "people begin to reflect (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    on the memos"?  Obama admins. releases the memos and the statement; Obama leaves the country for conference; Susan Boyle takes over the news cycle.

    An intellectual conflict (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Dadler on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:08:02 PM EST
    How can you prosecute soldiers for crimes committed in the insanity of war and NOT prosecute desk jockies who committed crimes under no more heat than their desk lamps?

    Claiming 9/11 changed everything and that these desk jockies were in the heat and had to craft such policy is akin to saying that thinking about war is no different than war itself.  

    Obama has, in effect, said that the b.s. ticking time bomb theory is, in effect, our operating paradigm whenever we feel like it.

    As for a T&R commission, I really can't take it seriously.  Not one of these people would show up.  None of them.  They are people who have NEVER had to answer for anything, why would they start now when they 1) didn't legally have to or 2) when they have no tarnished character to rehabilitate.  Truth is, in the circles these folks travel and work in, they have no problem finding work or dealing with whatever "consequences" (no laughter please) come their way as a result of being the torture crafters.

    Impeach Bybee (none / 0) (#44)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:10:10 AM EST
    I also believe a Truth & Reconciliation Commission would be a waste of time -- much too much opportunity for political grandstanding.  A much more focussed approach would be a hearing to determine whether to impeach Judge Bybee.  That way, Yoo, Addington and the rest of these "lawyers" could be forced to testify or take the Fifth.  As a former Army JAG prosecutor, I would like answers to the following questions:  Did you ever serve in the United States military?  If so, do you remember taking a mandatory course on the Geneva Convention and the laws of war?  If not, have you ever seen the movie "Judgement at Nuremburg"?

    Bollocks (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:14:23 PM EST
    It's justice that matters.

    Since when does motive matter? A pol should know that, eh?

    Anyhow, supporting torturers and watching criminals go free makes me angry. Is there a reason that doesn't (the famously foul mouthed) Rahm angry?

    Rahm never was bothered by it (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:16:37 PM EST
    I do not care what Rahm thinks, the issue is what Obama will do.

    Sl, let me understand this right. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Green26 on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:45:22 PM EST
    If the US has the mastermind of 9/11 in custody, there's chatter (similar to before 9/11) that something else big is going to happen in the US, and the mastermind is saying we'll find out soon enough what's going to happen;

    the CIA should make sure that he gets 8 hours of sleep everything and no one dares to push him against a wall?


    I think there's something funny (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:01:18 AM EST
    about a Bush Republican calling himself "Green."

    I voted for Clinton. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    How effective could it be (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by herb the verb on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:04:08 AM EST
    if they have to do it 183 times? In one month alone?

    Back to Obama, the worst thing about a "bi-partisan" government is that it is the same thing as a "One Party" government. Obama seems to be taking steps to ensure that is exactly what we have.


    It goes FAR beyond ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:46:42 AM EST
    ... "pushing him against the wall," but nice attempt to minimize acts of torture.

    Sticking with your hypothetical, however, does anyone seriously believe that you could get the "criminal mastermind of 9/11" to reveal his plans by pushing him against a wall?


    Personally, if the US believes another (none / 0) (#51)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:13:43 AM EST
    9/11 may be coming and believes the 9/11 mastermind knows about it, I don't have a problem with using harsh interrogation tactics to try to gain information to prevent the next 9/11.

    I don't have much sympathy for 9/11 masterminds or people who cut off Daniel Pearl's head.

    While I believe in principles, I believe there can and should be exceptions in extenuating circumstances.

    By the way, the 2005 Bradbury memo states that waterboarding was used on only 3 high level AG detainees. All of this was done within a year or so after 9/11. It was an extraordinary time and circumstance.

    With one half of what the US knew about Al Qaeda coming from the harsh interrogations (according to a memo and the former CIA director), I can accept the harsh interrogations, even the waterboarding on 3 people (done outside of US jurisdiction)--because it looks likely to me that these interrogations probably helped prevent another major attack on the US.

    I think many Americans feel the same way.


    The never ending ticking time bomb (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    Your language belies your certainty (none / 0) (#55)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:50:38 AM EST
    1. Why use the Versailles-style euphemism "harsh interrogation tactics"? Why not just say "torture"?

    2. Leave aside that the "ticking bomb" scenario is a meme beloved by 24 fans everywhere like Fat Tony Scalia. It's pure hypothesis and speculation. 183 ticking bombs does seem like rather a lot, doesn't it?  What "extenuating circumstances"?

    Responses omitted to the following trollish straw men:

    1. Daniel Pearl

    2. Outside US jurisdiction

    3. Another attack

    Please don't regurgitate all over the threads, mkay? It's sticky and repugant.

    I'm just using information and (none / 0) (#59)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:09:04 AM EST
    terminology (or paraphrasing it) from the memos and related media.

    Obviously, you haven't read the memos.


    Another FAIL, as usual (none / 0) (#69)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:01:28 PM EST
    You write:

    With one half of what the US knew about Al Qaeda coming from the harsh interrogations (according to a memo and the former CIA director), I can accept the harsh interrogations, even the waterboarding on 3 people (done outside of US jurisdiction)--because it looks likely to me that these interrogations probably helped prevent another major attack on the US.

    "I can accept the harsh interrogations."

    As ask, why do you use the euphemism? Why not just come out and say "torture"?

    You say that you're just paraphrasing the memos. But I'm asking you why you don't say "I'm in favor of torture" instead of saying "I can accept the harsh interrogations? Why hide behind Orwellian bureaucratic euphemisms?


    talk about an extraordinary time and... (none / 0) (#65)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 05:13:28 PM EST

    we're in one right now in regard to the financial industry terrorists...

    Maybe we should go about waterboarding these banksters and hedge fund managers to ensure that we don't have another Terrorist Crisis 2008...

    we don't want another one of these to happen, so we should torture those who allowed it to happen so they'll give us information on why it happened (and stop saying it just happens, and it's nobody's fault like they do now, like a bunch of idiots)...

    Sounds like a good plan Green...thanks for bringing up the idea of extraordinary times and extreme circumstances being grounds for torture...


    The only way... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by mike in dc on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:17:25 PM EST
    ...to make this not go away is to treat it that way, if we keep pushing Obama on it, and push our congress critters to take it seriously, and push the media to keep talking about it, then maybe, just maybe, we can get the ball rolling towards justice.  
    You know what might work?  Get Amnesty International to push a couple countries in the UN to demand that the US fulfill its treaty obligation and investigate and prosecute.  It'd be tremendously embarrassing and would make any refusal pretty transparent.

    He's protecting (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:13:48 AM EST
    his future options.

    Did Cheney leave him the keys (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:38:10 AM EST
    to his undisclosed location?

    let me point out the obvious: (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:20:32 AM EST
    if someone needs to get an attorney to write an opinion claiming that some dubious act their client wants to commit is "legal", then they know it's illegal already, and are merely seeking some kind of supporting cover, should their heinous acts beome a matter of public knowledge.

    but then BTD, you already knew that.

    Yes, but then what kind of lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 02:09:23 AM EST
    would give them that cover?

    Have these people never seen "Judgment at Nuremberg?"  Are they thinking it doesn't apply to them?

    It doesn't, evidently.  Not so long as the Democrats keep 'moving forward.'  Obama and the Dems are only avoiding the most vicious and enraged Republican theatrics (think the Clinton years).  They will, however, obstruct and lie to regain power and wealth.  Again.  


    Obama gets it. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:57:27 AM EST
    The Nuremberg Retributions were one of the lowest points in 20th century history.  The aftermath of the Second World War should have been a time for looking ahead, not for laying blame for the past. Unfortunately, too many people failed to understand that well-intentioned Germans accused of war crimes were just following orders and acting in good faith.  Those dedicated patriots in the Whermacht and hard working public servants in the SS were men of integrity, they didn't shirk their responsibility to keep the German homeland safe from Jewish, Polish, Russian, Rumanian, Yugoslavian, French, British, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian, American, Greek, Dutch, Norwegian, Canadian and Belgian fanatics, extremists, and non-combatants

    I've learned recently that the aftermath of the Second World War should have been a time for reflection, not retribution.  Everyone should have respected the strong views and emotions of Germans who defended their country through a war crime or two, just as much as they respected the strong views and emotions of the people whose loved ones were executed and dumped in a ditch, bombed, tortured, gassed, burned in ovens, and condemned as subhuman parasites unfit to exist.

    But vengeance prevailed over common sense.  Retribution was insisted upon by persecutors waving the "rule of law" in everyone's face, they rambled on and on and on about "justice" but all they were really after was payback and revenge.  So many German children who loved their dedicated fathers had to watch with tears in their eyes while their fathers were slandered in the newspapers and demonized by finger pointing trial lawyers parading around for the newsreel cameras.    

    -- The Complicity Guy Has Spoken

    Amazing. A classic parody (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:26:25 AM EST
    -- except, wait, it's not a parody.  It's WORM.

    On syllable labels are good shortcuts (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:41:53 PM EST
    They sure save on thought, don't they? ;-)

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    Do you think that Germany would have, on its own initiative, prosecuted the Nuremberg trials? I don't.

    Of course the analogy breaks down here because the rest of the world forced Germany to go to trial. Considering that there is not much interest from the rest of the world to prosecute BushCo, we must insist on some kind of forum and prosecutions of war crimes.

    Not something that has ever happened anywhere as far as I know, it usually comes from the outside. Had Bush or Cheney been arrested or forced out by a coup that would be another story.


    :-) well, you're right (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:39:09 PM EST
    It's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty good, and I have heard somwhere that some think we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or some such excuse. ;-)

    Do you think that America will on it's own initiative, prosecute Bush and Cheney? I don't. Unless America overrules Obama.


    No I Don't (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 06:17:44 PM EST
    I think that a US President, whoever it would be, would have to have major international pressure, or been the loser in a major war, to be forced to investigate former US administrations.

    From my point of view, BushCo was unAmerican, and a stain. But from Obama's point of view the stain would be on him, as he now represents US, were he to put BushCo on trial.

    Sad, and infuriating to think that those f*ckers are getting off scott free.


    The stain, though, is on him now (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:32:08 PM EST
    for a lot more than a little more than backpedalling on his campaign statements. He is in violation of US and international law.

    No, it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:03:19 PM EST
    It's on us.

    In a sense, yes it is (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:55:22 PM EST
    With the supernatural approval ratings he is enjoying right now for delivering nothing he has absolutely zero motivation to deliver anything that people want. Why should he? He looks at his approval ratings and he sees people overwhelming approving of the way he's going now, even though they are getting screwed, blued, and tattooed.

    But if his approval ratings dropped precipitously to Bush's outgoing levels by next week over war crimes prosecution, multi-trillion dollar bailouts of bankers instead of banks, etc., he'd change his tune and his actions pretty damn fast to get the support back.

    Of course, mainstream media has a lot to do with the approval ratings he has now, as well. Most people I think are nowhere near as informed as we are here, and base their opinions on what they read in papers and see on television.


    I can't go for that (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:55:19 PM EST
    There need to be consequences for Jay Bybee and  Steven Bradbury.

    Do you (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:57:58 PM EST
    really think there will be? I don't think so.

    Bybee has a target on his back (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:00:40 PM EST
    because he's a federal Judge.

    But no, I wouldn't put money on it.


    Impeachment (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:04:27 PM EST
    should be about activities as judge.

    Of course, were Bybee convicted of committing a crime, he would have to go, but that seems unlikely.


    Impeachment is political (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:07:03 PM EST
    but I accept that since he won't be convicted, it's probably not a worthwhile path. However, I hope he loses his license.

    There are (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:09:13 PM EST
    I don't disagree that there aren't reasons to remove him however, when you aren't going to hold the people accountable who actually did the torturing I don't see how you can remove a judge. Well, at least in the political sense anyway.

    I see the authorizers and high level justifiers (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    as more culpable. But I wouldn't let the actual torturers off the hook either.

    Certainly (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:15:12 PM EST
    in many ways they are more culpable. It looks like everybody is going to be let off though so in the end culpability doesn't matter.

    There need to be consequences for everyone (none / 0) (#64)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    When you say that Nixon can break the law and not go to prison, then the sentence of every man, woman, and child in prison is invalid.

    When you say that all of the presidents men can violate the law and not go to prison, you make a mockery of the rule of law.

    When you condone the work of war criminals and international terrorists such as Dick Cheney, then you are aiding and abeting after thefact.

    God save us all from what we have sown.


    What's clear is that Obama (none / 0) (#18)
    by Green26 on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:58:00 PM EST
    and Emanuel don't care what any of you think on this subject, i.e. the idea of prosecutions of some involved.

    I think Obama and the administration moved ahead on this issue some time ago.

    Moved backwards (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:00:29 PM EST
    more like it.

    I suppose the next thing you're going (none / 0) (#21)
    by Green26 on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:04:04 PM EST
    to tell us is that waterboarding someone 183 times is too much?

    One time is too much (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:10:31 PM EST
    183 times demonstrates  monsters.

    It's actually 183 times in a month. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Green26 on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:59:49 PM EST
    See bottom of p. 37 of the 2005 Bradbury memo (version linked in a prior thread). Last sentence of last full paragraph.

    Do the math on that (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:47:48 AM EST
    and then consider how that would be per day. One time is too much, six times a day?! Bloody hell.

    Imagine how shattered (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:48:32 AM EST
    your mind would be after that.

    You would divide your days into waiting to be tortured and being tortured.  If you had any real information to give up, it most likely would have happened within days.  After that torture would have been about inflicting pain, not extracting more information.

    You'd have PTSD.  You'd probably be in or heading into a deep depression.  You might even be psychotic and living in a world apart from reality.  

    I think it would be much easier to get information out of someone who was as functional as possible, not a dysfunctional wreck.

    If that was the point...


    Do you consider the mastermind of 9/11 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:01:48 AM EST
    a "monster"?

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 01:14:49 AM EST
    What green26 is saying... (none / 0) (#56)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:52:15 AM EST
    ... is that we have to go over to the dark side.

    Now, where did I hear that?


    Without the Liberal Wing of the Party . . . (none / 0) (#42)
    by Doc Rock on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 07:58:59 AM EST
    . . . I see a popular, one-term presidency.  My vote is moving off the incumbent!

    I don't know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    In and of itself, I think this will cause a short-term firestorm among Obama's liberal base, but many will be reluctant to abandon him.  By the time he's up for re-election in 3 1/2 years, they'll be looking at his cumulative record.

    More importantly, it depends on what kind of shape the economy is in by the summer of 2012.  If it's doing well, I think Obama will get another 4 years.  If it's still in the toilet, he (and by extension, many Democrats up for election) will be blamed.


    Thanks for the Rowley letter (none / 0) (#43)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:01:29 AM EST
    She, at least, has been willing to confront her colleagues in the Department of Justice who did not do their jobs. And, if you scroll down further, you will find another in the letter from John Koppel a career lawyer in the Justice Department.  

    Thanks for Koppel letter ;-) (nt) (none / 0) (#73)
    by good grief on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:32:22 PM EST
    This is just (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:38:38 AM EST
    massively disappointing.  But now are the Spanish going to pick up the baton?  Will the UN?

    Truth commission? (none / 0) (#58)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    If there is a full investigation, surely there will have to be prosecutions, no matter what the administration now says. So it seems to me that depending on where the administration falls on the question of investigations, this whole thing is either a "Make me do it," or it's a "La la la la I can't hear you!"

    Pretty close (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:06:42 PM EST
    Axelrod just said that the POTUS "believes strongly that we need to be looking forward" and that they "can't afford to get bogged down" in Bush Admin investigations.

    Hope no one is still holding their breath.


    We can't get "bogged down"... (none / 0) (#71)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:05:35 PM EST
    ... in removing a cancer.

    Well, alrighty then. Guess we know where we stand. After all, these people might be useful n stuff n we all go to the same parties and they love kittens n stuff... [gag spew]