dagblog - Comments for "ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong"

"Most of this isn't worth

new10 — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:23:26 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

"Most of this isn't worth responding to so I won't."

Likewise. Finally, something we agree on.

Most of this isn't worth

oleeb — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:05:58 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

Most of this isn't worth responding to so I won't. If you don't like me because you think I don't like Obama or that I don't like him to your satisfaction, it's really not something I'm gonna lose any sleep over.

You wrote:

"The legal debate may be over, but the national security debate is not."

What are you talking about? There is no national security debate about this, it's merely a political distraction in pursuit of covering up atrocious conduct that our government committed. It has absolutely nothing to do with national security under Obama any more than it did under Bush.

1) "Well, as I said, you are

new10 — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:23:34 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

1) "Well, as I said, you are wrong on my not liking Obama. I voted for him. I contributed to his campaign."

Just because you voted for Obama doesn't mean you wanted to. There are many conservatives who voted for McCain (over Obama), but dis not want to. As far as your liking Obama, what actually shows through your posts and comments, IMO, is a rather consistent tone suggesting otherwise - as evidenced by the tone of this very post, which I've already pointed out.

2) "The difference, I think, between person like yourself and me may be that I have been in politics and government for a long time."

So, you assume. But, even if true, perhaps, that experience is to your detriment and may be tainting your perception of Obama more than it informs your perception.

3)"He is not "different" from the rest. That whole marketing ploy was hooey from day one. Axelrod did a great job of getting people to believe but it isn't and never was true. He is just another one of them and he is the ultimate insider's outsider. He's smart and I like that. He has a good heart and I like that. He knows right from wrong and that's a good thing though he often compromises the right when it is easier than doing the right thing which is standard political behavior. He gives a good speech and can be an inspiration when he wants to be. All desirable qualities in a good politician."

Sounds like Obama is a great deal different than the previous White House occupant cum politician, doesn't it? The contradictions within that section need no further highlighting.

4)"But he, like many of his fellow practitioners in Washington are wont to do, is making the mistake of playing politics in matters where politics should be put aside and principle defended. He is a politician whose record on these issues (war crimes, torture, etc...) demonstrates a lack of commitment to moral and legal principles he himself claimed and pronounced during his campaign..."

You see, here's an example of your taking the torture photo debate and using it to launch a larger attack on Obama as President.

5) "I would submit to you I am far more loyal to him and wanting him to be successful for the country than all those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of what he is doing."

A straw man built upon what appears to be the delusion that your constant slights of his 4-month old administration equals your showing the most loyal support for Obama. It would be easier to accept your critical analysis if you would stick to criticizing his policies instead of seeking openings to cut down what you apparently feel is the Obama-myth.

6) "Do not excuse anything with this politician in the White House that you would not have excused when Bush was in. That is only fair and honest. With respect to all of the war crimes of the Bush administration there's no avoiding the conclusion that Obama's record thus far is simply deplorable."

In the first place, there is a hell of a lot of difference between not excusing what BUSH DID, and excusing Obama's pragmatic attempts to triage the damage of what BUSH DID. You take an absolutist position that the decision to release the photos right now is a simple and clear one. It is only simple and clear to those not also responsible for the safety of over one-hundred thousand troops, and for the suppression of future terrorism against the U.S. Bush would have had an obvious cynical motive to use the protection of the troops as an excuse to hide HIS OWN presidential misdeeds. Since Obama was not complicit in what BUSH DID, he has no such motivation. Therefore, it's far more likely that Obama's motivations are exactly what he claims they are. I'm not saying that it is obvious that Obama should not have released those photos, but neither is it obvious he should have, as you suggest.

7) "Not really. The courts have already ruled. That debate is over and even the President's position last month was that any appeal would be "hopeless."

The legal debate may be over, but the national security debate is not. It would be irresponsible for the president of the U.S., whether they were Barack Obama, or John McCain, or Hillary Clinton to not also consider those national security issues. You vainly cling to the notion of upholding the law despite the fact that we have Americans exposed in two theaters of war who would bear the bloody brunt of such vanity.

Am I saying that Obama should not release those photos? Again, no, that's not my point. My point is that its irrational for anyone to suggest that the the only possible reasons for that decision are due to common political character flaws.

Give me a break. You are

oleeb — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:15:27 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

Give me a break. You are saying that because you believe (wrongly) that I just don't like Obama that there's something deficient in the criticism of him. Well, as I said, you are wrong on my not liking Obama. I voted for him. I contributed to his campaign. I have every right,as a citizen and as a supporter to criticize him for flip flopping on promises on issue of great importance to the country. These are not political issues I'm criticizing him on. They are matters of morality and immorality, the rule of law and criminal conduct.

The difference, I think, between person like yourself and me may be that I have been in politics and government for a long time. I have worked closely with many Obamas and I have never had any blinders on about who or what he is. He is a politician plain and simple. A really, really good politician, but a politician. He is not "different" from the rest. That whole marketing ploy was hooey from day one. Axelrod did a great job of getting people to believe but it isn't and never was true. He is just another one of them and he is the ultimate insider's outsider. He's smart and I like that. He has a good heart and I like that. He knows right from wrong and that's a good thing though he often compromises the right when it is easier than doing the right thing which is standard political behavior. He gives a good speech and can be an inspiration when he wants to be. All desirable qualities in a good politician.

But he, like many of his fellow practioners in Washington are wont to do, is making the mistake of playing politics in matters where politics should be put aside and principle defended. He is a politician whose record on these issues (war crimes, torture, etc...) demonstrates a lack of committment to moral and legal principles he himself claimed and prounounced during his campaign and, I might add, on January 21st of this year when he proclaimed that the rule of law and transparency would be the hallmark of his Presidency. His record belies that statement with the notable and welcome exception of the torture memos having been released. Otherwise, he has caved in repeatedly to the worst elements in Washington and his policies on the whole war on terror and anything having to do with the criminal conduct of the Bush years is becoming a mirror image of Bush's policies. This is precisely the sort of craven DC Democratic behavior that has stood in the way of progress on any number of fronts for decades, but on this front it is intolerable and a threat to our future as a civilized republic.

Because you and many others want Obama to be better than he is clearly demonstrating that he is, you can barely contain yourselves when you detect "disloyalty" to him or that someone "dislikes" him. I would submit to you I am far more loyal to him and wanting him to be successful for the country than all those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of what he is doing. He is clearly a captive of Washington and the Washington mindset. He is surrounded by Washington insiders who long ago lost their moral bearings. He is fully invested in the Rahm Emmanuel style of Democratic governance which is reprehensible and duplicitous when it comes to these issues.

If the President actually believes in transparency and the rule of law he has a strange way of showing it thus far (again with the notable exception of release of the torture memos). His moral "flexibility" has been evident since his flip flop on FISA. You don't have to believe this of course. But I say look at what is happening and judge the President not on what you hope he might end up doing but on what he has done. Do not excuse anything with this politician in the White House that you would not have excused when Bush was in. That is only fair and honest. With respect to all of the war crimes of the Bush administration there's no avoiding the conclusion that Obama's record thus far is simply deplorable. It is exceptionally clear that unless there is fierce public opposition to his attempts to cover for the Bush regime's crimes he will continue to cover for them. That is exactly what is going on and what is clearly being foreshadowed by the administration.

He has made a series of horrendously bad judgments on these questions that are both disappointing and dangerous for the future of the country and that's the truth. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings about him though I must say with each and every flip flop and betrayal I lose more respect for him because I didn't think he would completely capitulate to the forces of darkness with this kind of speed. It's a tremendous disapppointment to me that he has shown so little resolve.

And by the way, you wrote:

"Of course, there is an honest debate to be had about those torture photos."

Not really. The courts have already ruled. That debate is over and even the President's position last month was that any appeal would be "hopeless." The debate is about why the President has flip flopped and why he continues to do all he can to keep the previous administration's crimes from being exposed. None of it has anything to do with whether someone likes him or not.

I concur.

new10 — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:33:18 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

I concur.

Oh yes, I do know the PRICE

Qwerty — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:22:17 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

Oh yes, I do know the PRICE of blindly following and accepting without question your Leader, my question, is do you know the value of a Principle?

I wasn't going to comment

new10 — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:17:42 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

I wasn't going to comment here, as NCSteve is perfectly capable of defending his positions, however, you are being quite disingenuous in one particular aspect of your response to his comment. You obviously expected that your post would be taken wholly as a rational and morality based critique of Obama's decision to not release those torture photos. The problem is that anyone who has followed your postings and comments knows that you attack Obama and his supporters at most every opportunity, and so, we are wary. We didn't have to be wary for long. Just re-read the opening sentence of your post which states; "I know it is painful for many to come to terms with the fact...". That faux sympathetic, -but actually condescending- tone warns the reader of your ulterior motive right out of the gate, doesn't it?

This post, and your subsequent comments, strongly indicate to me that you are more interested in attacking Obama (and his supporters) than you are in attacking his policy decision. You used the torture photos issue, Trojan horse like, as a vehicle to get inside and then launch what was mostly an anti-Obama attack. You obviously expected that torture photo Trojan horse to give your attacks at least a patina of moral rectitude. The problem is that your blogging history and the condescending tone of this post betray any such high-minded purpose.

Of course, there is an honest debate to be had about those torture photos. There clearly is a pro and con to their release, and any rational person would concede that such pros and cons are far from one-sided. So that I'm not misunderstood, I do not in any way view criticism of Obama's decisions as improper or unhelpful. In fact, I view such criticisms as proper, helpful and necessary. What I do find improper and unhelpful are those attempts at using this torture photo issue to rationalize a long standing personal distaste for Obama and launch what is actually a political attack not a moral one.

and mea culpa for the

diachronic — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:07:55 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

and mea culpa for the ascription of Pinochet to Argentina.
The analogy stands, though.

What is that saying about the

AnswerFrog — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:06:49 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

What is that saying about the defintion of a cynic? Knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

This I have to say about

Qwerty — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:11:52 +0000

In reply to ACLU is Right on Photo Release: Bush/Obama Are Wrong

This I have to say about Change - plus ca change, plus ca ne change pas!!!