PDA

View Full Version : Religion Republicans will go nuclear on Obama's DOJ appointees if torture memos are released.


Direckshun
04-06-2009, 09:57 AM
Your daily shamelessness.

I haven't the slightest idea why the Republicans continue to marry themselves to Bush.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-05/are-republicans-blackmailing-obama/full/

Are Republicans Blackmailing Obama?
If the president releases the Bush torture memos, Republicans are promising to “go nuclear” and filibuster his legal appointments. Scott Horton reports on a serious threat to Obama’s transparency.

by Scott Horton

Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public. The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration’s abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward.

Barack Obama entered Washington with a promise of transparency. One of his first acts was a presidential directive requiring that the Freedom of Information Act, a near dead letter during the Bush years, was to be enforced according to its terms. He specifically criticized the Bush administration’s practice of preparing secret memos that determined legal policy and promised to review and publish them after taking office.

But in the past week, questions about Obama’s commitment to transparency have mounted. On April 2, the Justice Department was expected to make public a set of four memoranda prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, long sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy organizations in a pending FOIA litigation. The memos, authored by then-administration officials and now University of California law professor John Yoo, federal appellate judge Jay Bybee and former Justice Department lawyer Stephen Bradbury, apparently grant authority for the brutal treatment of prisoners, including waterboarding, isolated confinement in coffin-like containers, and “head smacking.” The stakes over release of the papers are increasingly high. Yoo and Bybee are both targets of a criminal investigation in a Spanish court probing the torture of five Spanish citizens formerly held in Guantánamo; also named in the Spanish case are former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and three other Bush lawyers. Legal observers in Spain consider the Bush administration lawyers at serious risk of indictment, and the memos, once released, could be entered as evidence in connection with their prosecution. Unlike the torture memos that are already public, these memos directly approve specific torture techniques and therefore present a far graver problem for their authors.

The release of the memos that the Senate Republicans want to suppress was cleared by Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counsel Greg Craig, and then was stopped when “all hell broke loose” inside the Obama administration, according to an article by Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff. Newsweek attributes internal opposition to disclosure of the Bush-era torture memos to White House counterterrorism adviser and former CIA official John O. Brennan, who has raised arguments that exposure of the memoranda would run afoul of policies protecting the secrecy of agency techniques and has also argued that the memos would embarrass nations like Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt, which have cooperated closely with the CIA in its extraordinary renditions program. Few informed independent observers, however, find much to credit in the Brennan objections because the techniques are now well-known, as is the role of the cooperating foreign intelligence services—any references to which would in any event likely be redacted before the memoranda are released. Moreover, the argument that the confidence of those engaged in torture—serious criminal conduct under international and domestic law—should be kept because they would be “embarrassed” if it were to come out borders on comic.

The Justice Department source confirms to me that Brennan has consistently opposed making public the torture memos—and any other details about the operations of the extraordinary renditions program—but this source suggests that concern about the G.O.P.’s roadblock in the confirmation process is the principle reason that the memos were not released. Republican senators have expressed strong reservations about their promised exposure, expressing alarm that a critique of the memos by Justice’s ethics office (Office of Professional Responsibility) will also be released. “There was no ‘direct’ threat,” said the source, “but the message was communicated clearly—if the OLC and OPR memoranda are released to the public, there will be war.” This is understood as a threat to filibuster the nominations of Johnsen and Koh. Not only are they among the most prominent academic critics of the torture memoranda, but are also viewed as the strongest advocates for release of the torture memos on Obama’s legal policy team.

A Republican Senate staffer further has confirmed to me that the Johnsen nomination was discussed at the last G.O.P. caucus meeting. Not a single Republican indicated an intention to vote for Dawn Johnsen, while Senator John Cornyn of Texas was described as “gunning for her,” specifically noting publication of the torture memos.

No decision was taken at that Republican caucus meeting whether to filibuster or not, though Cornyn was generally believed to support filibustering Johnsen and potentially other nominees. Johnsen has met recently with moderate Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, both of whom are being lobbied heavily by colleagues and religious right groups to oppose her nomination.

Both Koh and Johnsen are targets of sustained attacks coming from right-wing lobbying groups. The Daily Beast previously reviewed the attacks on Johnsen, while Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has catalogued the recent attacks on Koh. Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson recently endorsed the Koh nomination, calling the Yale dean “a man of great integrity.” But connecting the Obama nominations to the Bush torture memos escalates the conflict toward a thermonuclear level.

Reaper16
04-06-2009, 10:09 AM
Ahhhh, politics. Drink it in; it always goes down smooth.

blaise
04-06-2009, 10:50 AM
I think it may backfire on Obama if he releases those memos. Bush is gone. I don't see the point in doing it. I can't imagine the public is going to like it to have an ex President paraded around in front of the world as a sort of war criminal.
I thought it was a mistake when the Republicans went after Clinton so hard with the Lewinsky thing, and I think this could eventually be a PR mistake for Obama.
People that hate Bush want to see them, but they are going to support Obama anyway. I just don't see the real benefit for Obama. All he'll be doing is appeasing the people he already has in his back pocket.
That being said, I don't agree with the tactic of opposing nominations to suppress the release. If you don't want him to release them present your case to him as to why he shouldn't and let him decide.

SBK
04-06-2009, 10:51 AM
More important, when will Obama stop blaming Bush for everything? He's out of office, let him go. This kind of stuff looks petty and less than Presidential.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 10:54 AM
More important, when will Obama stop blaming Bush for everything? He's out of office, let him go. This kind of stuff looks petty and less than Presidential.

Yes, when will Obama stop blaming Bush for torturing people and stomping all over our Constitution? GET OVER IT NOBMAMA!!!!

Those who do not ignore the past are bound to repeat it. Isn't that what all the historians say?

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 10:56 AM
More important, when will Obama stop blaming Bush for everything? He's out of office, let him go. This kind of stuff looks petty and less than Presidential.

It's replies like this that lead me to think that SBK is actually a pull-my-string forum-bot who is automatically programmed to reply to certain threads with certain phrases, regardless of relevance.

SBK
04-06-2009, 10:58 AM
Yes, when will Obama stop blaming Bush for torturing people and stomping all over our Constitution? GET OVER IT NOBMAMA!!!!

Those who do not ignore the past are bound to repeat it. Isn't that what all the historians say?

No surprise here.

Reaper16
04-06-2009, 10:58 AM
I think it may backfire on Obama if he releases those memos. Bush is gone. I don't see the point in doing it. I can't imagine the public is going to like it to have an ex President paraded around in front of the world as a sort of war criminal.
I thought it was a mistake when the Republicans went after Clinton so hard with the Lewinsky thing, and I think this could eventually be a PR mistake for Obama.

It depends on what is in the memos. It might very well be that the memos aren't damaging to Bush at all, and don't need to be released. If they're bad, though, then they'll make the Lewinsky situation look utterly insignificant. Which it already is, but you get my point.

Reaper16
04-06-2009, 10:59 AM
It's replies like this that lead me to think that SBK is actually a pull-my-string forum-bot who is automatically programmed to reply to certain threads with certain phrases, regardless of relevance.
He's not, though. He made a stellar post over in the Lounge re: QBs yesterday.

SBK
04-06-2009, 11:00 AM
It's replies like this that lead me to think that SBK is actually a pull-my-string forum-bot who is automatically programmed to reply to certain threads with certain phrases, regardless of relevance.

No. Did Bush go after Clinton for his massive failures in regards to terrorism? Nope. Should the next President go after Obama for his illegal takeovers of private industry? Nope.

The past admin is over, let it go.

I'm also guessing that people don't believe the reports that have surfaced that treatment of prisoners at Gitmo has worsened since Obama took office?

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 11:01 AM
No. Did Bush go after Clinton for his massive failures in regards to terrorism? Nope. Should the next President go after Obama for his illegal takeovers of private industry? Nope.

The past admin is over, let it go.

I'm also guessing that people don't believe the reports that have surfaced that treatment of prisoners at Gitmo has worsened since Obama took office?

Yeah, did Bush go after Clinton for allowing torture on his watch? Think about that libs!

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 11:02 AM
No. Did Bush go after Clinton for his massive failures in regards to terrorism? Nope. Should the next President go after Obama for his illegal takeovers of private industry? Nope.

The past admin is over, let it go.

I'm also guessing that people don't believe the reports that have surfaced that treatment of prisoners at Gitmo has worsened since Obama took office?

This isn't even """"going after"""". This is basic government transparency.

The Bush administration is over. So, let's release the memos, right?

SBK
04-06-2009, 11:03 AM
Yeah, did Bush go after Clinton for allowing torture on his watch? Think about that libs!

Or selling our secrets to China?

You're still suffering from BDS man.

The President isn't a person, it's an office and it would be nice if it could be treated that way again. And yes, I'm including Republicans in this.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 11:04 AM
This isn't even """"going after"""". This is basic government transparency.

The Bush administration is over. So, let's release the memos, right?

The only viable solution is a whitewash and a perpetuation of our current policies. Just like everybody in this forum is advocating for our current banking/financial crisis.

SBK
04-06-2009, 11:06 AM
This isn't even """"going after"""". This is basic government transparency.

The Bush administration is over. So, let's release the memos, right?

I don't have a problem with transparency at all. One thing Obama has done well is worked to make things more transparent.

I would like to see democrats let Bush go and start moving forward. :doh!:

blaise
04-06-2009, 11:07 AM
Yes, when will Obama stop blaming Bush for torturing people and stomping all over our Constitution? GET OVER IT NOBMAMA!!!!

Those who do not ignore the past are bound to repeat it. Isn't that what all the historians say?

People say that, although I think basing your Presidential decisions on cliches is overrated.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 11:09 AM
I don't have a problem with transparency at all. One thing Obama has done well is worked to make things more transparent.

So YOU'RE ON OBAMA'S SIDE on this issue, then?

Surely you are eminently frustrated that REPUBLICANS are the ones playing petty politics here, not Obama.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 11:09 AM
One good reason to get all this stuff out into the public is to make it harder for all the people involved to wiggle back into influence working for the government or God forbid another President.

blaise
04-06-2009, 11:16 AM
The people further left will want it, the people further right won't (not all in either case, just most I would guess)
What he should be thinking about is the people in the middle and how they'll react. I'm just not so sure they'll see it as admirable the same way some people on the left will. I think they might think it's bad form, and I think he might sour some people.
I would think the same way if this were a Democrat. I just think it's kind of bad business.

SBK
04-06-2009, 11:19 AM
So YOU'RE ON OBAMA'S SIDE on this issue, then?

Surely you are eminently frustrated that REPUBLICANS are the ones playing petty politics here, not Obama.

Both sides are playing politics. To claim Obama isn't doing this for any political reason is crazy.

I'd like us to move on. How about we focus on the future instead of the past.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 11:32 AM
Both sides are playing politics. To claim Obama isn't doing this for any political reason is crazy.

I'd like us to move on. How about we focus on the future instead of the past.

Yes, surely no repercussions for illegal and unethical behavior by past administrations will have no effect on the actions of future ones.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 12:34 PM
Those who do not ignore the past are bound to repeat it. Isn't that what all the historians say?

Yea no, not quite.

jiveturkey
04-06-2009, 12:58 PM
I don't need to see them but I want to be sure that it's not allowed to happen again.

SNR
04-06-2009, 01:16 PM
I don't need to see them but I want to be sure that it's not allowed to happen again.Right. I don't care so much about the Republicans defending Bush as I care about the fact that most of the leaders haven't gone out and made anti-torture a future staple of their platform. I haven't heard them condone it, but I haven't heard boo-diddly (apart from McCain on the 2008 campaign trail) about how unethical it is.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 01:27 PM
Yea no, not quite.

Good to know you are in favor of releasing the torture memos to the public Radar Chief.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 01:30 PM
Good to know you are in favor of releasing the torture memos to the public Radar Chief.

You probably shouldn’t be in such a hurry to talk about torture after what you did to that quote.

Pitt Gorilla
04-06-2009, 01:42 PM
I don't have a problem with transparency at all. One thing Obama has done well is worked to make things more transparent.

I would like to see democrats let Bush go and start moving forward. :doh!:I would think that making the documents public is a step towards "letting go."

SBK
04-06-2009, 01:43 PM
I would think that making the documents public is a step towards "letting go."

That's a very naive view.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 01:54 PM
Both sides are playing politics. To claim Obama isn't doing this for any political reason is crazy.

I'd like us to move on. How about we focus on the future instead of the past.

I can't summarize into thought how short-sighted this view is.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 02:15 PM
You probably shouldn’t be in such a hurry to talk about torture after what you did to that quote.

I was sarcastically misquoting it you dumbass. By altering the quote from "Those who do not know history..." to "Those who do not ignore history..." I was mocking people like SBK that think the best solution to all this torture business is to completely IGNORE it.

Because you see, it would indeed be stupid to live by the mantra of "Those who do not ignore history are bound to repeat it." Even so, many people seem to think we should do that in regards to all that lovely torturing and justification of torture through sophistry and doubletalk that went on the last eight years.

It really wasn't all that difficult to understand.

Reaper16
04-06-2009, 02:16 PM
You probably shouldn’t be in such a hurry to talk about torture after what you did to that quote.
Oh, really? He tortured that quote? He caused that quote physical or mental anguish?

SBK
04-06-2009, 02:17 PM
I can't summarize into thought how short-sighted this view is.

Obama is a brilliant politician. He's brilliant. Everything he does is a calculated move. To think this is something else is crazy.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 02:25 PM
I was sarcastically misquoting it you dumbass. By altering the quote from "Those who do not know history..." to "Those who do not ignore history..." I was mocking people like SBK that think the best solution to all this torture business is to completely IGNORE it.

Because you see, it would indeed be stupid to live by the mantra of "Those who do not ignore history are bound to repeat it." Even so, many people seem to think we should do that in regards to all that lovely torturing and justification of torture through sophistry and doubletalk that went on the last eight years.

It really wasn't all that difficult to understand.

:spock: I’m sure it made the voices in your head laugh.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 02:26 PM
Oh, really? He tortured that quote? He caused that quote physical or mental anguish?

Oh but didn't he? Didn't he?

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 02:28 PM
:spock:

You should just have this little baby ready to go at all times.

mlyonsd
04-06-2009, 02:29 PM
This article is asinine.

The WH won't release the memos because they're afraid of a Republican filibuster on DOJ nominations?

What's next? Are the Republicans going to threaten to boycott the next House b-day party where cake is being served?

If the Republicans are capable of tying Obama's hands over this he better not ever go up against the likes of really smart adversaries like Hugo Chavez or Kim Jon-il.

Laughable. Some people will believe anything.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 02:29 PM
You should just this little baby ready to go at all times.

:spock: Particularly if I’m going to waste any more time trying to decipher your posts.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 02:30 PM
:spock: Particularly if I’m going to waste any more time trying to decipher your posts.

You should stick to your Jack and Jill books.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 02:32 PM
You should stick to your Jack and Jill books.

:LOL: Says the guy that can’t even post in legible English.

Pitt Gorilla
04-06-2009, 02:32 PM
This article is asinine.

The WH won't release the memos because they're afraid of a Republican filibuster on DOJ nominations?

What's next? Are the Republicans going to threaten to boycott the next House b-day party where cake is being served?

If the Republicans are capable of tying Obama's hands over this he better not ever go up against the likes of really smart adversaries like Hugo Chavez or Kim Jon-il.

Laughable. Some people will believe anything.That's what I was thinking. Politically, I think he would welcome this particular challenge; none of this seems to add up.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 02:37 PM
:LOL: Says the guy that can’t even post in legible English.

How could have read my post and think I wasn't intentionally using the word ignore instead of know? Seriously. You read this entire thread, read my post, and didn't come to the conclusion that by using the word ignore instead of know I was intentionally completely changing the sayings meaning to mock SBK. How?

blaise
04-06-2009, 02:39 PM
That's what I was thinking. Politically, I think he would welcome this particular challenge; none of this seems to add up.

If he agrees to it he's going to get FOIA requests on all his memos as well. I know he says he wants transparency, but when that's put to the test it may not be so easy for a President. If it comes out that he released Bush's memos but suppressed others making him look bad it's going to look worse than if he never agreed to release Bush's at all. Then he'd look like a hypocrite. If he doesn't release them he'll just look like a President covering for another President.

SBK
04-06-2009, 02:41 PM
I was sarcastically misquoting it you dumbass. By altering the quote from "Those who do not know history..." to "Those who do not ignore history..." I was mocking people like SBK that think the best solution to all this torture business is to completely IGNORE it.

Because you see, it would indeed be stupid to live by the mantra of "Those who do not ignore history are bound to repeat it." Even so, many people seem to think we should do that in regards to all that lovely torturing and justification of torture through sophistry and doubletalk that went on the last eight years.

It really wasn't all that difficult to understand.

Hey douche, I never said they should ignore it. You should apply for a position rubbing Obama's balls after a long hard day, you'd be great for the position.

jiveturkey
04-06-2009, 02:41 PM
This article is asinine.

The WH won't release the memos because they're afraid of a Republican filibuster on DOJ nominations?

What's next? Are the Republicans going to threaten to boycott the next House b-day party where cake is being served?

If the Republicans are capable of tying Obama's hands over this he better not ever go up against the likes of really smart adversaries like Hugo Chavez or Kim Jon-il.

Laughable. Some people will believe anything.<object width="480" height="400" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="ordie_player_1084f408a5"><param name="movie" value="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=1084f408a5" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed width="480" height="400" flashvars="key=1084f408a5" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" quality="high" src="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" name="ordie_player_1084f408a5" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;width:480px;"><a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1084f408a5/jim-gaffigan-cake-beyond-the-pale" title="from jimgaffigan">Jim Gaffigan – Cake – Beyond the Pale</a> - watch more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/" title="on Funny or Die">funny videos</a></div>

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 02:42 PM
Hey douche, I never said they should ignore it. You should apply for a position rubbing Obama's balls after a long hard day, you'd be great for the position.

Obviously, anyone who is not for whitewashing the torture that happened under Bush's watch is just some Obummer zombie worshiping at the feet of the ONE.

SBK
04-06-2009, 02:43 PM
If he agrees to it he's going to get FOIA requests on all his memos as well. I know he says he wants transparency, but when that's put to the test it may not be so easy for a President. If it comes out that he released Bush's memos but suppressed others making him look bad it's going to look worse than if he never agreed to release Bush's at all. Then he'd look like a hypocrite. If he doesn't release them he'll just look like a President covering for another President.

This is why most Presidents move on. They are setting themselves up for a mess because they either need to release everything, or nothing. Anything less is just hoping to score political points.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 02:43 PM
How could have read my post and think I wasn't intentionally using the word ignore instead of know? Seriously. You read this entire thread, read my post, and didn't come to the conclusion that by using the word ignore instead of know I was intentionally completely changing the sayings meaning to mock SBK. How?

You honestly don’t even know what’s going on here do you?
But it’s someone else that’s the “dumbass”. ROFL

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 02:45 PM
You honestly don’t even know what’s going on here do you?
But it’s someone else that’s the “dumbass”. ROFL

Explain to me what's going on Radar Chief. What is flying over my head?

SBK
04-06-2009, 02:46 PM
Obviously, anyone who is not for whitewashing the torture that happened under Bush's watch is just some Obummer zombie worshiping at the feet of the ONE.

Did we ever have memos released about the rendition that Clinton approved of? What's the difference of sending someone to be tortured as to doing it ourselves?

I'd be interested to see these just to see if what has been labeled as torture, by people who have no idea as to what actually was going on, is actually torture.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 02:59 PM
Explain to me what's going on Radar Chief. What is flying over my head?

Just a little grammatical error. Go back and reread the part of your post that I quoted paying particular attention to what I highlighted, does the highlighted part make sense in the rest of that sentence? In the second sentence you asked a question, I was just answering it. The amazing part to me is you felt the need for such drama over it.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 03:02 PM
Just a little grammatical error. Go back and reread the part of your post that I quoted paying particular attention to what I highlighted, does the highlighted part make sense in the rest of that sentence? In the second sentence you asked a question, I was just answering it. The amazing part to me is you felt the need for such drama over it.

That was the entire point of that post. By altering the quote from "do not know the past" to "do not ignore the past" I was mocking those who think we should just sweep this whole torture thing under the rug. Those are the people who want to ignore history.

SBK
04-06-2009, 03:06 PM
That was the entire point of that post. By altering the quote from "do not know history" to "do not ignore history I was mocking those who think we should just sweep this whole torture thing under the rug. Those are the people who want to ignore history.

LMAO

From a guy supporting the administration making the same mistakes that turned the great depression into a decade long event.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 03:08 PM
That was the entire point of that post. By altering the quote from "do not know the past" to "do not ignore the past" I was mocking those who think we should just sweep this whole torture thing under the rug. Those are the people who want to ignore history.

Yea know how the more you have to explain a joke the less funny it becomes? This is an example.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 03:11 PM
Yea know how the more you have to explain a joke the less funny it becomes? This is an example.

I am having to explain it to you when it was self-evident to begin with. Hence why I suggest you stick to your Jack and Jill books.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 03:15 PM
I am having to explain it to you when it was self-evident to begin with. Hence why I suggest you stick to your Jack and Jill books.

Says the guy that “sarcastically” butchered the English language in a way no one seems to find funny. ROFL

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 03:26 PM
Says the guy that “sarcastically” butchered the English language in a way no one seems to find funny. ROFL

I feel like I am losing brain cells arguing with you that I could be losing through more entertaining means. Good luck on the whole lack of reading comprehension thing.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 03:35 PM
I feel like I am losing brain cells arguing with you that I could be losing through more entertaining means. Good luck on the whole lack of reading comprehension thing.

The feeling is mutual.
And good luck with the whole English as a second language thing. You’ll eventually figure it out. :thumb:

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 03:49 PM
Obama is a brilliant politician. He's brilliant. Everything he does is a calculated move. To think this is something else is crazy.

I just don't know how you read an article talking about Obama doing SOMETHING YOU AGREE WITH, and Republicans are threatening revenge if he does it...

...and the first place your brain goes is "that darn Obama with his politics."

That just makes NO sense, unless you are just a preprogrammed forum-bot.

SBK
04-06-2009, 04:01 PM
I just don't know how you read an article talking about Obama doing SOMETHING YOU AGREE WITH, and Republicans are threatening revenge if he does it...

...and the first place your brain goes is "that darn Obama with his politics."

That just makes NO sense, unless you are just a preprogrammed forum-bot.

The Republicans are retarded. You should have read all my posts. I'm ok with him being transparent, but if he doesn't release everything he's setting himself up for a political mess.

The whole thing started with me saying I'd like to see the administration move on. At some point going after Bush has to go out of style.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 04:02 PM
The Republicans are retarded. You should have read all my posts. I'm ok with him being transparent, but if he doesn't release everything he's setting himself up for a political mess.

The whole thing started with me saying I'd like to see the administration move on. At some point going after Bush has to go out of style.

So... you want to see him be transparent about previous administrations.

But... you also want him to move on.

I don't think this is a contradiction like you do, but can you explain how you can believe both things?

SBK
04-06-2009, 04:08 PM
So... you want to see him be transparent about previous administrations.

But... you also want him to move on.

I don't think this is a contradiction like you do, but can you explain how you can believe both things?

If he wants to release everything from Bush's admin, so be it, I'm okay with that. If he wants to release a few documents here and there---it's time to move on.

mlyonsd
04-06-2009, 04:15 PM
That's what I was thinking. Politically, I think he would welcome this particular challenge; none of this seems to add up.

Absolutely. This whole thing is silly.

Obama not releasing those memos are not because he's afraid of republicans.....there's some other reason.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 04:17 PM
If he wants to release everything from Bush's admin, so be it, I'm okay with that. If he wants to release a few documents here and there---it's time to move on.

That makes no sense.

SBK
04-06-2009, 04:21 PM
That makes no sense.

:doh!:

If Obama is doing this for transparency I don't really have a problem with it. If he's doing it to score political points, I do.

At some point you have to move the country ahead and let go of the past. Bush bashing isn't going to move us to a brighter day.

I know most disagree with this because they actually believe Bush was the devil and he was killing and torturing people in a way that makes terrorists blush.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 04:26 PM
If Obama is doing this for transparency I don't really have a problem with it. If he's doing it to score political points, I do.
Is exposing potential illegality "scoring political points"?

jAZ
04-06-2009, 04:29 PM
No. Did Bush go after Clinton for his massive failures in regards to terrorism? Nope. Should the next President go after Obama for his illegal takeovers of private industry? Nope.

The past admin is over, let it go.

I'm also guessing that people don't believe the reports that have surfaced that treatment of prisoners at Gitmo has worsened since Obama took office?

I think torture is beyond the "good old boys coverup" pale. I can't believe people are claiming Obama should keep the cover up going.

At least he's struggling with the issue.

mlyonsd
04-06-2009, 04:34 PM
That makes no sense.

Depends, if memos are released to expose a crime that's one thing. If cherry picking memos just to make your predecessor look bad sets a bad precident IMO.

The Executive Branch would never be the same if that becomes common practice. It would impede future presidents from doing the job they think needs to be done.

I'm one of those that believes there are things that happens behind the curtains in every administration the public doesn't necessarily need to know about.

In this particular case as long as our intellgience procedures aren't compromised I don't really care if they are released. I have no problem with what our government did after 911 to protect the public.

Baby Lee
04-06-2009, 04:38 PM
:LOL: Says the guy that can’t even post in legible English.

Legible? What, is he using some weird font?

blaise
04-06-2009, 04:51 PM
Is exposing potential illegality "scoring political points"?

I think he's saying, and I would agree, that it would be more politically motivated than some altruistic search for truth and justice.
But like I said, I think it could come back to bite him in the ass, and I think he's savvy enough to know that. All it would do is make the ACLU, some liberal law professors, & Bush haters happy, and the media that could report on it.

SBK
04-06-2009, 04:57 PM
I think torture is beyond the "good old boys coverup" pale. I can't believe people are claiming Obama should keep the cover up going.

At least he's struggling with the issue.

How do you even know something is a cover up? Were you in some meetings? Do you know someone involved? Right now all you've got is hearsay by politically motivated people.

If something illegal was done absolutely I'd want it to come out. My hunch is that this is a lot closer to something happening in 2 weeks than some giant conspiracy.

SBK
04-06-2009, 04:58 PM
Depends, if memos are released to expose a crime that's one thing. If cherry picking memos just to make your predecessor look bad sets a bad precident IMO.

The Executive Branch would never be the same if that becomes common practice. It would impede future presidents from doing the job they think needs to be done.

I'm one of those that believes there are things that happens behind the curtains in every administration the public doesn't necessarily need to know about.

In this particular case as long as our intellgience procedures aren't compromised I don't really care if they are released. I have no problem with what our government did after 911 to protect the public.

This is pretty much what I've got to say.

Except the 9/11 report was more about covering behinds more than it was about protecting us in the future.

jAZ
04-06-2009, 06:38 PM
How do you even know something is a cover up? Were you in some meetings? Do you know someone involved? Right now all you've got is hearsay by politically motivated people.

If something illegal was done absolutely I'd want it to come out. My hunch is that this is a lot closer to something happening in 2 weeks than some giant conspiracy.

Cheney admitted to torture by waterboarding.

SBK
04-06-2009, 06:39 PM
Cheney admitted to torture by waterboarding.

Cheney said, "we tortured people by waterboarding them."????

mlyonsd
04-06-2009, 07:08 PM
Cheney admitted to torture by waterboarding.

If I were a betting man, I'd say if we had another 911 under Obama and in the aftermath "torture", like say waterboarding, takes place we won't hear a peep out of you.

patteeu
04-07-2009, 10:29 AM
I think torture is beyond the "good old boys coverup" pale. I can't believe people are claiming Obama should keep the cover up going.

At least he's struggling with the issue.

If it's a case of the previous administration clearly breaking the law, then he ought to prosecute it. If it's not something he's going to prosecute then he ought to decide whether releasing the information helps or harms the country. I think there's a strong case to be made for the argument that even if what the previous administration did was within President Bush's legal authority, publicly hashing out the less than pleasant details (and thereby handing demagogues ammunition for their appeals to emotion) is harmful to the country. Even for the demagogues who are primarily just anti-Bush demagogues rather than anti-American demagogues, we've learned that when it comes to deciding between the two, their anti-Bush sentiments often trump any sense of pro-Americanism they might have.

patteeu
04-07-2009, 10:31 AM
Cheney admitted to torture by waterboarding.

No he didn't. But you're a good example of the phenomenon I was talking about in my previous post.

|Zach|
04-07-2009, 12:17 PM
Legible? What, is he using some weird font?

LMAOLMAO