Broder: They Committed War Crimes, But They Didn't "Trash Our Town"

Predictably, David Broder demonstrates what a foul human being he is:

Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want something more -- the humiliation and/or punishment of those responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for individual scalps -- or, at least, careers and reputations. Their argument is that without identifying and punishing the perpetrators, there can be no accountability -- and therefore no deterrent lesson for future administrations. It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance.

What a mendacious hypocrite Broder is. He urged investigations and attacks on Bill Clinton because "[he] trashed the place" (but torture is a-ok to Broder): [More...]

"[Clinton] came in here and he trashed the place," says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "and it's not his place."

Shut the eff up David Broder. We do not need hear from you, you sanctimonious phony hypocrite.

Speaking for me only

< Another Protest, Another Clash With Police | Saturday Evening Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Adulterous sex in the oval office trashes the (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    whole place.  Get a rope.  Torture all over the world........well......it isn't nice but the upolstery is fine :)

    Two seperate issues, two seperate articles (1.28 / 7) (#4)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    Broder was right about Clinton. He trashed the office of the president. Can't deny that.

    I'm not sure the header of this diary is fair. The citations are from two separate article - written year apart from one another by two separate authors.

    As for his comments of the torture issue, first of all if people read the column they will see that Broder is not for torture and is glad Obama released the memos so the public would know. Not that anyone implied he was for torture but I just thought I would point that out. And he backs Obama's decision to not prosecute in what Broder calls "one of the darkest chapters of American history"

    Secondly I agree with him that "They are looking for individual scalps -- or, at least, careers and reputations." Valid point. The same thing is happening in the Obama Plan vs. Nationalization argument as I have stated often. That is what happens in politics, with both politicians and private players. People are looking to make a name anytime a problem arises.

    And yes Broder is also right that many are looking for vengeance. Some call it justice, OK, but there is a thin line between the two words Vengeance & Justice. Vengeance implies something more anger filled or revenge motivated. From reading the posts on most blogs I'd have to say Vengeance would be as an appropriate word to use as any.


    Their careers are already over. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by NealB on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    Their reputations are damaged beyond repair, not that they care. And the scalps analogy is ridiculous. Prison time, yes; they can keep their scalps.

    None of this has anything to do with vengeance. It's about justice, that's all.


    Broder is wrong (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by cenobite on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:30:24 PM EST

    Broder was right about Clinton. He trashed the office of the president. Can't deny that.

    I can quite easily deny that. Broder is wrong. Clinton didn't do anything that, say, Bush 41 did.

    I can, however, prove that Newt Gingrich trashed the office of speaker of the house on an etch-a-sketch.


    What Clinton did is seperate from (1.40 / 5) (#37)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    what Bush did, 41 or 43 - and I think you meant 43. Clinton doesn't get a pass just because what 43 did was worse. sheesh!

    With that logic set Phil Specter free because he isn't Charlie Manson. LOL


    I *do* mean Bush 41 (none / 0) (#62)
    by cenobite on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    Bush 41 had an affair while in office, the thing you seem to be so upset with Clinton about.

    Bill Clinton never did anything as bad as Bush 41's demon spawn.


    Well if true... (1.33 / 3) (#66)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 08:40:58 PM EST
    which I doubt because I never heard about it and no one responding to you ever heard about it - but if true I'd say he trashed the office too. So what's your point?

    Doubt all you like (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by cenobite on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:37:43 PM EST
    The woman's name is Jennifer Fitzgerald.

    And it was well known by the DC political press.

    because I never heard about it

    I'm sure there are many things you've never heard of that are true.

    However, you think that might have something to do with our so-called liberal media?

    no one responding to you ever heard about it

    Also incorrect.


    true as far as I know (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by souvarine on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    I worked DNC oppo in 1991, the committee and the Clinton campaign didn't want to go there so they never made a concerted effort to get the press to cover Bush's affairs. There was a lot of grumbling about it from the party researchers, but in the end the Clinton campaign was right, in real political terms highlighting those kinds of scandals damages the party pushing the information as much as it damages the target.

    There are always the prudes who are titillated and obsessed with these stories, but that tells you more about them and their value system than it does about the politician. Unlike the Broders of the world the values of American voters are deeper, they are moved by questions like "should our government torture?"


    The info on Bush 41 (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:50:43 PM EST
    is not exactly new. Donna Brazile brought it up in '88.

    On October 20, 1988, she made headlines by telling a group of reporters that George H.W. Bush needed to "'fess up" about unsubstantiated rumors of an extramarital affair.
    Said Brazile, "The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House."[2] The Dukakis campaign immediately disavowed her remarks and, at the suggestion of campaign manager Susan Estrich, Brazile resigned the same day. Four years later, the same issue, the relationship of George H.W. Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald would be briefly rehashed during the 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton, who had his own extramarital affair rumors. wikipedia

    Bush 41 had an affair? (none / 0) (#63)
    by aeguy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    Never heard about that.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:09:53 PM EST
    he did.  It was a long running affair with - names escapes - I think her last name was Fitzgerald.

    He was questioned briefly about it in the 1992 campaign but refused to answer.


    Me neither. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 08:16:15 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:08:31 PM EST
    he did.  It was a long running affair with - names escapes - I think her last name was Fitzgerald

    So you also never heard about (none / 0) (#93)
    by Spamlet on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    why Donna Brazile was fired from the 1988 Dukakis presidential campaign?

    After extensive investigations (5.00 / 14) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:37:27 PM EST
    into every aspect of the Clinton's lives without reasonable cause something naughty was found.  When grilled about that Bill lied, and Broder claims he trashed the place.  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfy.....they rolled into town in power and trashed everything the United States stands for but investigations would be baaaaaaaaad.  That's a witch hunt.  If you don't see the irony and the hypocrite, well it is a free country and you don't have to if you don't want to.

    Do you believe all the twisted (1.50 / 2) (#40)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:58:58 PM EST
    words you read? Just where did Broder compare what Clinton did to what Bush did in this diary? Show me.

    One does not have to read it (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    it is implied.

    The "Dean" (of Sanctimonious Hypocrisy) wanted Clinton run out of town, looked his nose down on him, and said he "trashed" the city.  WHY?  Because of a personal indiscretion.  On the other hand he had been excuse and protecting the "blue blood" dolt for years.  

    Anyone who knows Broder knows he is an elitist who loves plutocracy.


    You're trying to change the subject (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    What was meant was that Broder was a regular carpet chewer when it came to Clinton and now Broder wants to let Bush & co off the hook for real crimes that did real damage to the nation.

    Not the point (5.00 / 16) (#15)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:41:11 PM EST
    Here is the point:

    The same people who were part of (or approved of) the public witch hunt to find something to hang Clinton with (and thought they found it with a private matter which had nothing to do with the supposed reason for the investigation), are now saying: don't prosecute, let it be.

    So, it's OK to spend millions of dollars and have a public prosecutor find something, anything to nail a president you hate with, but it's not ok to even have a truth commision on goddamn torture.

    People who think like that are, indeed, foul human beings.

    It's torture. It's a crime. If Americans had been tortured, everybody would be falling over themselves to bring the culprits to justice. Or, more likely, to have a public execution for them. But no, these people tortured evil brown people, and it would not be bipartisan to do something about that. It would just not be civil, right?

    It makes me sick.


    YUP (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    Torture is a crime, but it is only one of the many (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Aramis on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:43:39 AM EST
    crimes the Bushes committed during his 8 loooong years in office.

    The illegal surveillance of Americans is very significant to me. If I start to think of all of the laws that were broken by the Bush administration my head feels like it will explode. And when I hear people say,"Let's move forward," or "the Dems just want scalps or humiliation," or something similar, it just reinforces what I already know. They don't care about the country.

    That's the bottom line. If they can get away with violating laws, it's okay with them. I sincerely wonder how many upper level people really questioned themselves about how their actions would affect our country. Probably not many. It's tragic that they were representing and making decisions for decent Americans!


    I never condoned torture (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:10:56 PM EST
    neither did Broder in his column. What Broder is saying is he agrees with Obama decision. What I have said over the last few days is Obama has spoken loud and clear. It's just that some people don't want to believe what they hear.

    The real villain here is not Broder. He is just an observer which in this case like any other scribe has to write about what is happening. I'm ot a fan of Broders and don't really read him but he has a right to write and in this case is actually agreeing with a Democrat!

    Hey if you want to waste your time beating up on Broder go ahead it's your time. But doing so accomplishes nothing does it? The guy you need to convince is Obama and beating up on 10 Broder's is not going to get to Obama!!! In fact Obama would love that you are attacking Border (who can't help you) because then you are not attacking Obama! Obama wins and you and your distraction loses.

    Kust some advice. Keep your eye on the ball - not on some sideshow.


    if someone you know is tortured (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:15:17 PM EST
    he/she will be happy to know that it's no big deal, just a sideshow...

    The sideshow (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:26:58 PM EST
    I was talking about was Broder! Try reading before typing please.

    I understand what you're saying... (none / 0) (#47)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:33:31 PM EST
    your writing doesn't lack anything...

    for me, though, saying that the subject is a sideshow right now because of the other things going on (and there are some important things going on, as you have noted in other threads) is akin to saying that the act of torturing in itself is no more than a sideshow that doesn't deserve debate...

    I'm pretty confident in my ability to multi-task when it comes to issues...the rest of America and the media maybe not so much, but I can only represent myself...


    Again - I said (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 08:48:41 PM EST
    the sideshow is about Broder! This thread! This thread is a side show. Has nothing to do with the guy in control which is Obama. How many times am I going to have to say it say it?

    Apparently many times. (3.66 / 3) (#72)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:15:49 PM EST
    How many posts do you have on this one thread alone?

    BTW, glad to see that you rated Seymour Hersh and Senator Lindsay Graham a "2". Retaliatory rating* irrelevant of content is just so...classy. Keep it up!

     *Apparently you don't like the fairly consistent 2's I give your posts. I don't troll rate them because I believe you are sincere (if misguided) in what you post. A 2 reflects the what I believe to be the level of reasoning displayed and the value added. But seeing you rate a post a 2 when that post is nothing but two short quotes from an investigative reporter and a sitting Republican senator posted directly in reply to your "was someone's daughter murdered" post...that's too rich.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:38:28 PM EST
    You were agreeing with Broder, especially describing wanting justice as "vengeance". You are agreeing with him that prosecuting torture is not the right thing to do.

    Stop weaseling out of that. If you agree that torture is not worth prosecuting, you are not worth my time.


    Opposing torture is (none / 0) (#73)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    not the issue here.  Again you're trying to change the subject.  The discussion is about Broder's opposition to an investigation and possible prosecution.

    You couldn't (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    be farther off the mark.

    Thank you for your opinion (1.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:36:21 PM EST
    I respect it. Can you respect mine or is this a one way street?

    Nonsense. No one is looking for "scalps" (5.00 / 11) (#21)
    by esmense on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:54:22 PM EST
    What ordinary Americans like me and many, many others want is a thorough and effective refutation of these illegal and immoral practices and ABUSES OF GOVERNMENT POWER.

    No one is above the law -- not former President Clinton or powerful members of the Bush administration.

    If you genuinely believe that the outrage expressed and legal actions taken against Clinton for "trashing the office" are justified, how can you support zero accountability for office holders who trashed the ideals and reputation and destroyed the credibility and moral authority of the ENTIRE NATION?

    The Bush administration abused its power in ways that endangered the freedom of every American and indulged in terrible immoral acts that both shamed and endangered the security of every  American. Whether conservative or liberal, moderate or independent, Republican or Democrat. There is no way for us to redeem ourselves, and prevent such acts in the future, without sincerely condemning and holding people accountable for their shameful actions and policies. My question to you is why you appear to feel no shame at this serious betrayal of bedrock American values and ideals?


    Talk to Obama (1.25 / 4) (#68)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 08:51:24 PM EST
    Broder has nothing to do with it. He has no power. Obama is the guy you should be yelling at not Broder or me. Get a grip.

    Broder (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:24:21 PM EST
    is an 'opinion maker.'  It's his position that there should be no investigations that might lead to prosecutions. Broder is the subject of this discussion not Obama.

    I doubt the Broder (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Catch 22 on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    really cares about what people on blogs say. I know that talking about him changes nothing. What does it change cal1942? Anything at all?

    And I know that people who have already formed an opinion on the torture issue are not going to be influenced by Broder. In fact how many times has this blog and it posters said Broder is irrelevant? And now he is?


    So, as near as I can tell, your theme (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:53:40 AM EST
    song is "What's The Point?" or perhaps, "What Difference Does it Make What We Think?"

    You can bold your assertion that torture is wrong all you want, but your main purpose seems to be to convince people to just sit down and shut up, to roll over and submit, to learn to accept the screwing we're getting.

    How's that workin' out for you?  Managed to silence anyone for daring to try to speak out?

    Didn't think so.

    As for Broder, what he says is garbage, but he matters because he gets to spew it in a bigger forum.  And, he is mistakenly viewed by others within the Village as having his finger on the pulse of everyday people - this works out well for the lazy media, who think they can read Broder instead of finding out what real everyday people actually think.  It's a nice little loop they've been in for a long time, and breaking into it, revealing it for the distorted reality it is, is what a lot of this discussion is about. Maybe Broder doesn't read blogs, but so what?

    I think there are more than a few people here - me being one of them - who see your just-give-up-now attitude as one that only assures that the evil men do will be allowed to continue; it's nearly as repulsive as the issue itself.

    And no, I don't have any respect for that why-bother attitude or the opinions that accompany it.


    Catch 22 (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    is now banned from my threads.

    I've heard enugh from you (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    You are banned from my threads.

    Stick to commenting in Jeralyn, Ethan's and TChris' threads.

    All your comments in my threads will be deleted from now on.


    David Broder's long standing conceit is (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by esmense on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    that he speaks for, represents,uniquely understands the heart of, the "average American" and "the Heartland." But he scraped any trace of "the heartland" off his shoes decades ago and his notion of the "average American" (and liberal Americans) is still stuck in the cliches of the Nixon campaigns. His, like Nixon's, is a rather ignoble view of his fellow Americans as unsophisticated, good hearted but emotional and intellectually and morally lazy fools with simplistic, brutal notions of right and wrong. For all his paens, and that of the other beltway pundits he's influenced, to the heartland and "regular guys" etc., etc., his attitude toward his fellow citizens is extremely smug and patronizing.

    Broder takes the stand he does because he believes that "average Americans" don't care about torture and are incapable of understanding or caring about the moral dimensions of the debate. For him there is no important dimension to the debate other than the political one -- how any action taken benefits or harms the political players involved.

    But you are right, Broder isn't the most important player in this dynamic. The most important players are citizens like you and me. Broder's commentary reflects his judgement that complacent acceptance of torture like yours is the mainstream view, while moral outrage like mine is not. This opinion has the advantage of supporting the status quo he benefits from.

    But, the more players in Washington -- in politics and media -- convince themselves that your opinion (that meshes so nicely with their own self-interst) represents the legitimate will of the people that must be served, the more endangered are all our freedoms.

    Because if "we the people" indicate no strong objection to outrageous abuses of power and  betrayals of our ideals, surely we can expect and will be dealt much much more (and worse) of the same.



    Clinton didn't trash (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:54:24 PM EST
    the office.  He trashed himself.  Nixon trashed the office, Reagan trashed the office, W. Bush trashed the office.

    Get the difference?


    Yes, Clinton trashed himself (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:10:47 PM EST
    And it sucked because he did so much wonderful work and then the meaning of is is came along.  It hurt Gore too though.  It hurt the Dem party. After Nixon though.....did it really trash the town?  That's fricken laughable! I'm sure it hurt his family but that is a personal matter just as his adultery should have been a damned personal matter.  He didn't fling with Monica in my name.  He didn't fling with anybody in my name.  I want nothing to do with any Presidents sexuality as long as he's having it consensually.....bleh.  What if the President is into a light whip, what about all of my feathers?

    Context of, "is, is" (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    President Clinton was being grilled by a federal prosecutor in a Federal grand jury proceeding. This was a battle between a politically driven prosecutor, charged with one goal, "nail President Clinton," and a skilled lawyer/politician, Bill Clinton. This was not a news conference, nor was he speaking to the American public.

    Every lawyer knows that in situations like this, nuance is often the difference between guilty, or not guilty.

    The prosecutor, having failed to nail him with, "having sexual relations" (oral sex is legally not "sexual relations) tried another tactic. He referred Clinton to a statement his attorney, Bob Bennett, made, "The President is not having sex of any kind with......" Being a smart lawyer, and needing to cover Bennett's remarks, ("IS not having sex...") Clinton said that Bennett was speaking in the present tense, therefore "it all depends what is, is."

    He was not having sex at that time, therefore, legally speaking; the statement was 100% true.

    To us lay people it might sound like weasel words, but to the law, it could be the difference between "Guilty, or Not Guilty."  


    True (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 07:56:50 AM EST
    I see the differnce between (1.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:34:37 PM EST
    what each of them did because what each of them did was different.

    But I don't see how Clinton having an adulterous affair under the desk in the Oval Office or anywhere else in the WH is not trashing the office of the President. Perhaps your idea of trashing is different than other peoples and that is fine. But it doesn't make your definition any more right or wrong than another persons as the definition of trashing is purely subjective. I would hope that you respect that difference and don't put your definition above others.


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    But I don't see how Clinton having an adulterous affair under the desk in the Oval Office or anywhere else in the WH is not trashing the office of the President.

    then you just don't get it.

    With Clinton it was a personal matter.  With the others it was a series of heinous illegal acts, acts directly related to their Constitutional duties that damaged trust in the office itself.  After Nixon, Reagan, W. Bush we can't trust that a President of either party won't wilfully break the law.  That's what I call damaging the office.  Getting laid while in office is personal and not something that arouses the fear of what can happen if a President deliberately breaks the law. Clinton after all ran one of the cleanest administrations in our history.


    What are you? (4.33 / 6) (#61)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 07:28:49 PM EST
    Twelve?  Do you really believe Clinton was the only politician who had sex in the oval office?   We know that many of our presidents had affairs and half the public knew it at the time!  I would bet a fair amount that a few others had some fun in there.....
    Do you think the oval office is a church or temple or what?   It's a place where a person works....aka an office.   You sound like you ascribe to the right wing mentality of trying to make this "office of the presidency" some holy sanctuary, approved by some god.  IT'S AN OFFICE....and going after Clinton on personal stuff was about politics.......

    Torture is about morality.  We, the people, have said by our belief in democracy that breaking the law, breaking treaties is wrong.

    Broder, like many on the right, is an elitist.  You want to be a part of that mentality, have at it.  I believe we let go of some that religious right to be a leader somewhere around 1776 when we declared that we elect leaders (as opposed to letting someone's god appoint them). As such the office in which our leaders work are just that ..OFFICES.  To assign them more value than that is going along with the Broder mentality of somehow elected officials are god like, above us and are somehow elected because of their standing (ie family's monetary power) in the aristocracy and appointment by god.

    The BUSH's name trashed the office if anyone did....Bush the grandfather worked with the Nazi's...

    Reagan trashed the office when he gave support to Pinochet's murdering and disappearing of thousands .....
    Nixon trashed it...

    If sex trashed the office then it was trashed started with Jefferson and the other founding fathers who diddled all around their estates...


    is circumventing the laws given (none / 0) (#52)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    by the Geneva conventions not 'trashing' the office, though?

    just a question...not sure if you've answered that yet...

    what if the BJ was off the grounds of the white house...would that make a difference?

    I mean, I know that Clinton is the only president to ever commit adultery and all, but just a question...


    I also have to assume that there (none / 0) (#55)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:43:06 PM EST
    were absolutely zero pressing issues in the U.S.ofA at the time of Clinton's presidency...

    otherwise the Repugs were just giving us a little look here, not there song and dance when they wasted time and money exacting their vengeance on Clinton...


    Huh (none / 0) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:30:39 PM EST
    were you being facetious?

    Try Harding, Kennedy, possibly H. W. Bush and possibly Wilson.  


    ya (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:26:47 AM EST
    I'm a sardonic SOB...

    although, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there who think that Clinton is the only Prez to ever get laid by someone other than his wife while in office...

    considering that AT LEAST 25% of men commit adultery (and those are just the ones who get caught or admit it) I find it hard to believe that only one of our Presidents falls into that category, but maybe some naive person out there feels otherwise (I mean, c'mon, we're a Christian country and Christians don't commit adultery)

    ehhh, i just can't be anything other than sardonic living in this country...sometimes making a half-joke is the only way to deal with all the bs we face...


    so if someone murders your daughter... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:06:26 PM EST
    and you want that person to face the death penalty you're not looking for justice?

    Was someones daughter murdered? (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Catch 22 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    Dunno. Maybe so. (4.25 / 4) (#57)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    Reporter Seymour Hersh and Senator Lindsay Graham (R), SC:
    " Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."


    Republican Senator Lindsay Graham: "The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

    ya, plenty of daughters have been murdered (none / 0) (#53)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    although I would think that the parents may suffer from both vengeance and a want for justice at the same time...and I don't think that makes their need for justice any less important...

    just like with this issue...there's definitely a little bit of both..I think there's more justice involved, whereas ANY republican is going to say it's more vengeance (as Republicans are not subject to justice, just vengeance)...


    Broder is a (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    sanctimonious hypocrite which apparently appeals to you.  Sex is evil and violence is good.....
    give me a break.

    I most certainly can (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by sj on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:27:14 PM EST
    Broder was right about Clinton. He trashed the office of the president. Can't deny that.

    I absolutely do deny the truth in that assertion.


    Shorter Catch 22 (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    If you can't attack the facts, attack the motives.

    Persiflage (none / 0) (#8)
    by Waldo Lydecker on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    It wasn't even a nice try.

    And this is the guy (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    who called Senator Harry Reid an embarrassment for declaring the Iraq war lost.

    But we won and now we can go home :) (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:37:59 PM EST
    David Broder...why must this man continue (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    to insert himself (the man is really a suppository, isn't he?) into issues that keep begging for accountability and disclosure and investigation - Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, the US Attorney scandal, torture - and offer only arguments to protect and defend the a$$hats who are responsible for it?  

    Broder has the gall to write this:

    The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials.

    That, along with the rest of what he wrote, just makes me want to vomit.

    And the fact that he is cheering Obama's instincts not to prosecute, not to investigate - well, let's just say that it doesn't please me that Broder hearts Obama.

    Okay, I have to go back to the draft now...

    Have pity (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    On an old fool.

    Ever since Bernstein/Woodward scooped Watergate, Broder has tried to justify his relevance. Genetically incapable of doing real reporting, he demeans himself by squatting on an inflated balloon, like a circus seal, and is grateful for the sardines the politicians toss him. Knowing he's "safe," they must fight to keep from breaking out laughing as they whisper insider "secrets" to him. And so his list of "contacts" grows and grows.

    He started out as a reporter; He ended up a stenographer.

    No fool like an old fool,....truly sad.


    ehhh, he shouldn't feel to bad about (none / 0) (#48)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:34:35 PM EST
    Watergate, the scoop was given by Kissinger himself, not by any spectacular reporting by those that actually 'scooped' it...

    wow! (none / 0) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    Let's tell him; maybe he'll go away then.

    it's worth a shot (none / 0) (#58)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:49:43 PM EST

    LOL n/t (none / 0) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    I myself have an (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    "unworthy desire for vengeance."  It is directed at the likes of David Broder and Sally Quinn, the King and Queen of the sanctimonious, anti-Clinton Washington sheet-sniffers.

    Terrificly put (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    the King and Queen of the sanctimonious, anti-Clinton Washington sheet-sniffers.

    Hypocrite and Moron (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by koshembos on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:22:17 PM EST
    Clinton left the town blooming, while Bush trashed the country and its population. We are now living in Bush's ruins.

    Had Broder possessed one ounce of gray matter, he would have realized how important it's for the country to know its ugly history. It has nothing to do with scalps. Ignoring your own past makes you into a sick country with a closet full of skeleton.

    We don't want to be like Turkey, Armenian genocide, Belgium, Kongo genocide or Austria, we weren't Nazis.

    The WaPo has a comment section (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by jsj20002 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:33:32 PM EST
    following the Broder column.  I read about a third of them and by that point he was being pretty thoroughly trashed by about two-thirds of the commenters.  Maybe his employers will take note of just how out of the loop he really is.  

    Trouble is (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:45:05 PM EST
    his employers are also out of the loop OR really, really in the DC loop.

    These defenders of the torturers are (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    so transparent.

    They don't care about "ripping apart the country".

    They care about having their party ripped to shreds because if there were real inquiries into the Bush Administration's dealings there would be no leadership or key footmen (the next generation) left to continue their efforts to destroy this democracy and plunder this nation's riches.

    Sound crazy?  Well, from a kid whose dad was on Dick Cheney's enemies list for his participation in investigating Watergate and helping to STOP Nixon's cabal, I'm tired of watching people walk away without finishing the clean up job properly.  Really tired of it.

    I agree that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:01:56 PM EST
    the Broders et al are transparent.

    But they think that Washington is the whole of the nation and don't want it torn apart by the exposure and prosecution of the degenerates that run or ran the place.

    Of course, if any place needs to be torn apart it's Washington.


    People like Broder are totally (none / 0) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:15:53 PM EST
    cool with Washington being torn apart when the target is a Democrat - anyone who remotely resembles a democrat or a republican (little d and little r) are to be destroyed at all costs and this has been going on for too long.

    It is time to stop the madness.


    here's a thought... (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    last fall, i was trying to explain to my dad why i didn't think obama was "change you can believe in." i said- has he ever done anything that offended david broder? when david broder writes something critical of him, i'll know he's on the right track...

    Vomit (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:43:03 PM EST
    This really says it all.  This is the priority in the Village:

    They are looking for individual scalps -- or, at least, careers and reputations.

    The way the keepers of the Village think; why it just can't be about doing the right thing.  That warped mode of thinking, rampant through the Village like a virulent disease, symbolized by David Broder.

    I thought that pestilence was supposed to have retired.  Sometimes I think that Broder is the most morally repugnant of the whole diseased pack.

    Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by WS on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:58:37 PM EST
    If DC is to be part of a state hypothetically, the city should go to Virginia.  That'll make Virginia true blue.  

    Virginia already (none / 0) (#86)
    by jsj20002 on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 08:20:37 AM EST
    got its part of DC back.  It is called Arlington.
    The part that Maryland donated should go back to Maryland.  

    The pundits can't let go of Clinton. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by AX10 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:47:33 PM EST
    How can there be a comparison between the personal doings of a President vs. the blatent and widespread disregard for the law?

    The right went after Clinton in order to find anything to smear him with.  Starr and company were on a witch hunt.  Bush actually broke the law all on his own.

    "dean" broder is, and has been, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:26:18 AM EST
    a caricature for years. i assume the wp keeps him around for comic relief, since no thinking person takes him seriously. to support the non-prosecution of criminal acts, acts far worse than lying to congress about a bj, from a consenting adult, in the oval office, serves only to show just how ridiculous broder's "thought" process is.

    since when did prosecuting someone, for sanctioning criminal acts, become a dispute over policy? when did torture become a mere policy issue in this country.

    there was a time (say, oh, eight years ago) when you didn't have to parse to know what torture was, and that the united states didn't do it, for any reason. it sure as heck wasn't a matter for discussion!

    those who committed the acts themselves should be held accountable. their superiors, who ordered the acts, should be held accountable. the lawyers, who twisted the law beyond all recognition, to proclaim those actions ok, should be held accountable. no one should get off scot free on this. it's the only to start to reclaim the national honor, and restore its moral compass.

    to argue otherwise, for any reason, shows just how far off the deep end mr. broder and his ilk have gone.

    Oh Broder! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 07:54:54 AM EST
    What is our criminal law system, but a vengeance system--we long ago abandoned rehabilitation!

    We are on a slippery slope here (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by maddog on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    A legal opinion was provided to go to the line and then stop.  Policy was made based on these legal opinions.  If we start attacking administrations based on what the next administration believes, then we better be careful what we wish for.

    I read on another site about the US looking like a banana republic, in which a succeeding administration prosecutes the policies of the preceeding administration.  It is starting to look like that.

    How many lawyers looking at this site have written briefs or argued cases that push the envelope on the law?  Compare that to what these attorneys did in these memos.  A little self reflection is in order in this instance.

    Lastly, if these policies are considered torture now, why did so many go along with it then?  Will all of those democratic members of congress that did not object at the time be brought in for prosecution also?

    sure... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:17:47 PM EST
    I think the problem is that the pro-torture people (stealing a line from the right when they use the pro-abortion term) think that we anti-torture people only care about this issue b/c Repugs are involved...

    this thinking is wholly wrong; I don't care who was involved, I just don't want our troops to be tortured (our brothers, mothers, sisters and fathers) and the only way to go about ensuring that is to not ENDORSE torture...

    if half the democrats in the Senate have to go then so be it...complacency is not a defense (a lawyer could probably put that in better terms for me)

    It's a human rights issue, it's an issue of decency and morality...that is ALL...

    you'd think the SO-CALLED party of Morality would get that, but I guess not (maybe they aren't so moral after all...what, really, no way)


    I lived in a "Banana Republic" and (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    NOT doing something about this - NOT upholding the law is like a Banana Republic

    Doing something to fight the corruption and the otherwise protected elites involved in crime and corruption is what separates us from being a Banana Republic - when we do it.


    Slipperly slope my ass (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by eric on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:44:14 PM EST
    are you being paid to write this comment?  Torture is over the line, and everyone knows it.  Suppose Cheney got his lawyers to justify death camps?  Would that be over the line enough for you?

    How wrong (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:54:07 PM EST
    does a presidential wrong have to be before it morphs from a "difference of opinion" and "pushing the legal envelope" into a real crime?

    For me, torture is enough.

    A banana republic DOESN'T prosecute it's leaders and the corruption grows.

    So conscensus means something is right?  How many people "went along with" about every war crime in history?  I don't think I need to mention the examples.


    Was policy made around the (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:12:57 AM EST
    Legal opinions, or were the legal opinions 'fixed around' the policy? That is the point of the proposed investigations. Unbelievable to me that so many don't get that.

    "Fixed around the policy" (none / 0) (#89)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 09:08:02 AM EST
    Exactly. +1000.

    Straw men everywhere. (4.62 / 8) (#27)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:11:33 PM EST
    The issue isn't policy, the issue is torture and torture is a crime. (The only policy being debated here is the policy on upholding the rule of law or giving elites a pass.)

    When it comes to following orders, torture falls under the heading of manifestly illegal and when given a manifestly illegal order, regardless of the source, one is duty bound to disobey.


    Manifestly illegal!!!!! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:29:36 PM EST
    THAT'S the wording that has been eluding me.  Thank you thank you thank you

    A more meaningful argument (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    since you are so sure that many lawyers on here have argued cases that pushed the envelope is how many lawyers looking at this site have written briefs or argued cases that push the envelope on the law...............and then America turned into a banana republic because of that?  See, the thing missing in a banana republic is argument.

    Our Political Leaders (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    Are EXACTLY like our Corporate Leaders; One set of rules for them, a different set for us.

    And all his life, Obama wanted to be like Them.

    WaPo: Torture "divisive" (none / 0) (#88)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 09:06:08 AM EST