Obama exposes himself on prime time TV.
When Obama won the presidency last November, I wasn't happy. I voted against him. But he won, and I was determined to give him a fair chance. He is, after all, my president, even if he isn't of my political orientation. A little over three weeks in and I am finding less and less to like about President Obama.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Clavos
Great article, BTW. Well written.
27 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
So to recap, handy guy questions my morality outright, and that's not a low blow. In response, I point out that anyone can question anyone else's morality, right or wrong, and that IS a low blow? Got it. Thanks for the clarification on the rules of debate. Did you learn bi-partisanship from Obama?
Clavos,
Thanks for the props, and the support. I really do appreciate it. All these conspiracists have me pining for the good old days with MR...
28 - Baronius
Bar, "most" of us haven't written off Obama. He's definitely begun his administration with a large and controversial piece of legislation, and it'd be irresponsible for the Republicans to treat it as a "gimme".
Dennis Miller put it nicely on his show yesterday. Conservatives find themselves in the difficult position of hoping that everything they believe is wrong. That's really where we are. I'm not going to root for a deepening recession, a loss of international clout, and social crisis. What do I expect? Yikes, you don't want to know. I hope I'm wrong.
I'd like to see Republicans fight Obama's financial/budget agenda, and at least mitigate it. On social issues, there may be some decent bipartisan initiatives (immigration and education come to mind). Internationally, Obama's agenda is something we can all live with, if it's implemented well.
The lousy thing is that Obama started out with the issue that most divides the parties, the size of government. Actually, that's not true. One of the first things he did was to rescind the Mexico City policy on abortion, which seems to have surprised some pro-Obama Republicans. Viva post-partisanship.
29 - Roger Nowosielski
"So to recap, handy guy questions my morality outright, and that's not a low blow. In response, I point out that anyone can question anyone else's morality, right or wrong, and that IS a low blow?"
I wasn't aware of the first. But your response, then, you have to admit, is not going to get the two of you any closer to understanding.
30 - The Obnoxious American
I don't know about that. I like Handyguy, I just don't agree with him on several fronts. But yes, he did question my morality earlier in the thread. And maybe he is right to, I won't judge, lest I be judged, and perhaps he shouldn't either.
I have my reasons for my views and I state them pretty clearly in this piece, which is an opinion piece. I expect people to read it, argue, agree or disagree. But hopefully my points inspire thought because what happened Monday night deserves more thought than the social programming on our main stream news networks.
31 - Roger Nowosielski
There you go. If the two of you made that kind of pact, I bet you the discussion would go way smoother. You know, both sides have reasonable concerns, which is why the issues you're raising are still hotly debated.
Perhaps if you were to address those concerns rather than bringing up the specific examples (which are like a red flag to a bull), some progress could be made.
Just a suggestion.
32 - The Obnoxious American
"Really? I take it you've been waterboarded then? Fucking Christopher Hitchens, generally a right-wing zealot, was waterboarded and even he drunkenly said it was torture.
Maybe you'd like to mildly adjust your any objective measure prelude"
I wanted to respond to this. There is a big difference between coercive tactics like keeping someone awake for days at a time, blaring rock music, waterboarding and true torture, where a person is actually being harmed, disfigured, killed.
Waterboarding may be among the most extreme coercive tactics we have, but you can't die from it, you won't get hurt from it. It's actually a very efficient way for tricking the mind into thinking it's going to die, which is extremely compelling - all without actually putting the suspect at any real risk.
If you do consider waterboarding full on torture, then what about other non-lethal, or non-injurious coercive tactics? (Bear in mind even criminals in the US legal system face some elements of coercive tactics, though not as extreme as waterboarding).
And if other coercive tactics are not torture, then where is that line exactly that sets waterboarding apart?
But here is the real question: when the time comes where we capture a terrorist with information of a pending attack that we know will result in American deaths, do we really just sit there and do absolutely nothing? Are you suggesting that torture is so abhored that innocent Americans should be sacrificed in the name of upholding morals?
See, people forget what is really at issue here. This isn't about your view of morality or my opinion of what torture is. We are at war, lives are at risk. Do we do what we need to do to protect those lives and win the war, or do we give up everything while clinging to some sense of morality not shared by our enemies. And no, waterboarding does NOT make us like our enemies. Not by a long shot.
33 - Cindy D
By any objective measure, waterboarding isn't real torture â€" we waterboard our own soldiers as part of special ops training.
Tell that to Malcolm Nance. He is a counter-terrorism and terrorism intelligence consultant for US Special Operations. He has been waterboarded and has performed that on US military as a way of teaching them to deal with it if it ever were to happen to them. He says it should not be called "waterboarding" it should be called the "drowning torture". It is not a simulation of drowning as is commonly thought, he says. It is drowning.
34 - handyguy
Most people who know more about this than either you or I say that information gathered via torture is more likely to be unreliable than reliable.
Waterboarding doesn't increase the quality of our intelligence. The fact that we have done things like torture [or if you prefer, "torture"] and imprison hundreds of people for months or years without charging them when some of them have almost certainly been innocent -- the fact that we have done these things lowers our stature and our influence in the world, and in fact undermines the struggle against terrorism.
My first comment was already so lengthy that I didn't want to stretch it further by talking in detail about the news conference. You agree with Bill O'Reilly that the president was long-winded and boring. I [and many others] thought he was magnificent - and quite a contrast, in terms of how thoughtful and articulate he was, to the previous occupant of the White House - who held his first prime time news conference a month after 9/11 - nearly 9 months after his inauguration.
You claim to have had an open mind and given Obama a fair shot. Every line, word and punctuation mark in this article gives the lie to that claim. Obama is such a loser/demon that you can't find one point of agreement with him? You're just another partisan blowhard. Deny it all you want.
35 - Cindy D
#11: My views center around what's in the best interest for this country.
Yeah, mine too. I would start with rounding up everyone like you and sending them to live at Gitmo. Not to be imprisoned, just to keep you far away from sane people.
36 - Roger Nowosielski
OA,
Let's just admit. People have a number of divergent opinions as to what constitutes the best interests of the country. And some are quite valid.
So you cannot really insist on having the monopoly.
37 - Cindy D
lol oooops, that wasn't re: #11 that was re#18
(sorry pablo)
38 - bliffle
OAs article says: "By any objective measure, waterboarding isn't real torture "
There's an easy way for this to be settled. OA should tell us while he's being waterboarded, perhaps by Cindy.
Whatever he says will be his honest opinion since waterboarding is not torture.
39 - Cindy D
lol bliffle. egads, can't we just send him to gitmo? I can't even bear to watch someone getting blood taken by a nurse.
maybe we can get handy to do it.
40 - Roger Nowosielski
How did you manage to squeeze the term "objective" in there, bliffle?
I know I'm asking a rhetorical question here, because it's not your practice to engage in a dialogue. I can't help asking, though, because I think it's hilarious.
41 - Baritone
It's interesting that we executed Japanese who waterboarded Americans during WWII. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
OA - tell us about all the people whose lives were saved by waterboarding. What specific nefarious plots were stopped via waterboarding?
How anyone can believe that torture - be it waterboarding or whatever - and significant ill treatment of prisoners results in getting reliable information just hasn't been paying attention. Most of the analysis of the results of torture and other ill treatment shows that it rarely results in good information. How often we forget the old honey/vinegar tome.
I'm actually beginning to believe that OA and others here actually have been watching Obama in a negative, parallel universe. They can't be responding to anything that Obama has done in this, positive universe.
B
42 - Roger Nowosielski
They've been denizens of that universe for ages. But light always brings out the darkness.
43 - Roger Nowosielski
And why this perpetual obsession with the detainees?
It would seem there is no other reason than to keep on justifying the same old failed policies!
44 - The Obnoxious American
"Most people who know more about this than either you or I say that information gathered via torture is more likely to be unreliable than reliable. "
More likely to be unreliable. But sometimes it yeilds honest to goodness information. Again, no one answered my practical, real life question of what would you do if? and instead retreated to the safe world of the theoretical. Of course, because the ideas you espouse only work in theory.
"Waterboarding doesn't increase the quality of our intelligence. The fact that we have done things like torture [or if you prefer, "torture"] and imprison hundreds of people for months or years without charging them when some of them have almost certainly been innocent -- the fact that we have done these things lowers our stature and our influence in the world, and in fact undermines the struggle against terrorism."
I don't believe we waterboarded prior to 9/11 yet that didn't seem to stem the tide of attacks from radical Islam. And come to think about it, our soldiers were tortured (real torture) in Vietnam and probably Korea and WWII, so who exactly is observing these Geneva conventions, the French?
It's possible that some in Gitmo are innocent, just like in any jail. The American legal system has probably put more than 100 times the number of innocents in jail than all of the people who have ever been in Gitmo, yet no one seems to really care about that too much. Any innocent that is unjustifiably jailed is a tragedy, but this isn't an easy situation. The answer isn't to just let everyone go as a result. And you still never answered the real question, what's so wrong with Gitmo that it should be closed.
In terms of undermining our war (not struggle or Jihad thank you) against terrorism, what really undermines our fight against terror is the constant drumbeat of liberal anti americanism. We are bad because of SWIFT, we are bad because of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, we are bad because we waterboarded. We are bad because we support Israel and because we got involved in the middle east and dared to have bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (by their request). Nothing about the countless times America has shed blood and come to the rescue of various Muslims in need. And SILENCE, pure silence on the absolute persecution of non-muslims in the Arab world, as well as the implicit threat (and sometimes manifestation) of violence that is causing the reduction of free speech in Europe. Talk about a self defeating double standard.
"My first comment was already so lengthy that I didn't want to stretch it further by talking in detail about the news conference. You agree with Bill O'Reilly that the president was long-winded and boring. I [and many others] thought he was magnificent - and quite a contrast, in terms of how thoughtful and articulate he was, to the previous occupant of the White House - who held his first prime time news conference a month after 9/11 - nearly 9 months after his inauguration."
Translation, Bush was an idiot and my opinion is like O'Rielly's. Wow, now that's discourse I can believe in.
"You claim to have had an open mind and given Obama a fair shot. Every line, word and punctuation mark in this article gives the lie to that claim. Obama is such a loser/demon that you can't find one point of agreement with him? You're just another partisan blowhard. Deny it all you want."
Once again, instead of actually responding to the specific points in my article, you made generalizations. Face it, you read the first page, and decided that was enough for you. I never said Obama is a loser, or a demon, or anything else, and I don't believe that's true either. I actually think he is very smart, and an excellent politician, and that's the problem. On several specific points, I disagreed with him, and explained why. On several other points, he was verifiably bullshitting the American people and I pointed that out too. I don't see why that's a problem or why my opinion has you so up in arms. As Roger thoughtfully mentions, no one has a monopoly on opinion, not even you.
While you may be thrilled to have a president who speaks more eloquently than his predecessor, some of us care more about the substance of what was said than the style, and THAT is the point of all of this.
To everyone else, just having Cindy posting to my article is torture enough. Thanks for suggesting that I should be tortured though. I find it very interesting that the very people who would fight to keep a terrorist from being tortured are chomping at the bit for this law abiding American to face the same fate, merely for expressing his opinion. I'd think that says a lot about your morality.
45 - Roger Nowosielski
OA,
It's not un-American for a person to disagree with their government. In fact, there is nothing more American than being able to exercise their right of so expressing their disagreement.
46 - El Bicho
"I was determined to give him a fair chance."
Looks like you failed if you think three weeks on the job is a fair chance.
47 - Roger Nowosielski
Not much of a determination either.
If if were of the same mind as OA, I'd choose my language more carefully. I know he can do it, because the writing is fluent. All OA needs to do is spend more time on analysis. And if you write from emotion, don't betray yourself that easily.
48 - Dan(Miller)
I haven't been commenting recently, for various reasons. I have, however, been lurking every now and then (internet permitting). For what little if anything it may be worth, I find myself in substantial agreement with OA.
I hope this was said in jest; unfortunately, it seems quite consistent with the serious view of many. This sort of comment makes me much more afraid for the United States and her freedoms than any of the more substantive comments, of which there are many, with which I also disagree.One of the earlier comments, #35, states,
Dan(Miller)
49 - bliffle
#28 - Baronius
"Dennis Miller put it nicely on his show yesterday. Conservatives find themselves in the difficult position of hoping that everything they believe is wrong."
But of course everything 'they' believe has proven to be wrong. So, perforce, what they believe must be wrong.
And I still object to bums like Baronius and Miller arrogating to themselves the title "conservative". They are not. They are radical rightists.
They're just trying to spread the blame and infamy, probably, in hopes of mitigating their own responsibilities for failures.
50 - The Obnoxious American
What I find absolutely stunning about this discussion thread following my article, the article isn't about torture, that's one out of like 9 different issues I raised and I even agreed in the article that the practice was morally questionable. Yet this has been the focus of the conversation.
Rather than actually debate the serious points, of which there are many, in the article, most Obama supporters seized upon probably the easiest mark, waterboarding, set it up as a straw man, and proceeded to flog away at me.
No one has really talked about the specifics that I raised, Obama suggesting only earmarks are pork, or characterizing the opposition as merely wanting to "do nothing." Not one reference to where our president complained about inheriting these problems, as if he didn't actively campaign for two years in order to have the privledge.
Worst of all, not a single peep about the Floridian studen/McDonalds worker who expected Obama to get him a promotion, the fact that the president didn't use the opportunity to point out the obvious, individual responsibility. No discussion of the larger implications that this mindset perpetrates. Perhaps Obama never actually promised free gas and to pay our mortgages, or that government would solve all of our ills, but it's becoming clear that he never dispelled those expectations either. But hey, let's argue with OA about waterboarding.
I suspect these issues weren't really broached, not because I don't listen or I'm close minded or hostile or whatever attributes you've ascribed to me, but perhaps because these positions have no defense.
51 - Roger Nowosielski
Will the true conservative voices (other than bums) speak out!
52 - Cindy D
...the very people who would fight to keep a terrorist from being tortured...
Tell that to all the innocent people that were imprisoned there for years of their lives.
grrrrrrr
53 - Roger Nowosielski
OA (#50),
Then perhaps you should have omitted such a hot issue as waterboarding, no?
54 - Glenn Contrarian
OA, on waterboarding -
Did you not know of the opinion put forth by the Allied WWII interrogators? They said that they got FAR more reliable information by playing chess and ping-pong with their prisoners than by torturing them. To a man, these EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS from the worst war in human history stand against torture...including waterboarding. Don't take my word for it - Google it for yourself.
Ah, but I forget! Bush - who never left the country before his run for his presidency - and Cheney - who never served in the military at all...BOTH know better than the WWII interrogators. And they were willing to stain our national honor on the premise that they knew better than the WWII interrogators.
And you know better than the WWII interrogators, too, huh?
Here's the key, guy - if you get the prisoners to LIKE you, to want to HELP you without being forced to do so, THAT is when you get your best intel in terms of quality AND quantity. So it was for the WWII interrogators, and so it is now.
You are wrong in your support of waterboarding, which is by definition torture...and I suspect you're starting to admit it to yourself - for I cannot imagine that you would really think you know better than the WWII interrogators.
Or am I wrong about you?
55 - Cindy D
Glenn,
That sounds similar to what Malcolm Nance (#33) would/has said.
56 - Cindy D
But, people like O.A. just have these presuppositions in their heads. It makes them look obscene to anyone who doesn't automatically jump to the conclusion that things like torture are just dandy.
57 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
And to stand with Roger, if you wanted to concentrate on those other topics and NOT waterboarding, then perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned it...because the practice has stained the honor of America - MY country, which I honorably served for two decades.
When I was on active duty, I would never have imagined the leaders of my country would publicly admit that we torture. The Soviets would do that, and the ChiComs, and the North Koreans...but America? Surely not! We are America...and the idea that TORTURE would be part of our government policy was...inconceivable!
The support of torture has brought shame upon MY military, has stained the honor of MY country before the eyes of all the world...and I would dearly LOVE to see Bush and Cheney stand trial at the Hague where all war criminals should go.
58 - Roger Nowosielski
Thanks, Glenn.
I thought I was the lone ranger here. He does have a decent writing style; just needs to rethink his subject matter before putting it down on paper - like being determined for three long weeks to support Obama; then his determination fizzled out, I guess.
59 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
Thank you for your service to our country.
I totally agree that befriending suspects yeilds more information, it's called Stockholm Syndrome and it's real. But there isn't always time for that, and that's called the "Jack Bauer" exception. I personally believe that if the situation warrants we should do whatever we can to save American lives.
I object to anyone telling me what I should say in my article, or excusing the utter lack of discussion about anything else because of my less than staunch support of waterboarding. Fact is, America is not safer because the liberal elite in the U.S. demonized their own country because of a rare occassion where morally questionable, arguably crucial actions were taken to avoid another attack. It's not safer with President Obama apologizing for slights real or imagined, or disavowing (politicizing) waterboarding. And we are certainly not safer with one less tool in the kit regardless of whether it's morally questionable or not.
It should be known that I also didn't agree with Reagan when he said we would not ever carry out assinations. In both cases, I understand, even appreciate the postion, hence my comments in the article about not being on the side of angels.
But, I also say that sometimes you can't be on the side of angels.
60 - Jordan Richardson
But there isn't always time for that, and that's called the "Jack Bauer" exception.
Oh for Christ's sake. Are you serious?
61 - Clavos
And they were willing to stain our national honor
What "national honor?" You lost that condoning slavery.
62 - Roger Nowosielski
In that case, we might as well bury our heads in the sand.
63 - Cindy D
Or...simply look at the absurdity of the notion of "national honor".
64 - Clavos
Or...simply look at the absurdity of the notion of "national honor".
Bingo!
Once again, Cindy cuts right to the kernel.
Props, lady.
65 - Roger Nowosielski
There goes the idea of American exceptionalism!
66 - Clavos
...An equally absurd concept.
67 - Cindy D
you can say that again...
68 - Roger Nowosielski
Which brings one to Thucydides. Ultimately, there's no political theory that can argue against use or abuse of power.
From the Athenian expedition against the island of Melos (The History of the Peloponnesian War).
69 - Cindy D
O.A.,
Aside from my disapproval of torturing anyone. I am left wondering if you would have considered the plight of the innocent people who you might have approved of torturing?
They were all brownish people weren't they? Nothing to identify with there then?
No one was coming after your white ass.
The United States government has imprisoned nearly 800 men in Guantánamo Bay between 2002 and today. Many of these men were imprisoned because, in the chaos of war, they were turned over to the US military in response to the promises of rich bounties.
Kiyemba v. Bush, Center for Constitutional Rights
70 - Jordan Richardson
Which brings one to Thucydides.
But of course! Of course, in order to discuss Thucydides properly, one mustn't forget his younger brother Timydides or his sister Paris.
71 - Roger Nowosielski
Wow, a classicist too. Tell me about it. What do you mean?
72 - Jordan Richardson
I...don't know.
:)
73 - Cindy D
lol
74 - Roger Nowosielski
Well, an excellent collection of essays on Thucydides and his times is by David Grene, "Man in His Pride."
75 - bliffle
OA said: "But there isn't always time for that, and that's called the "Jack Bauer" exception."
Are you aware that 'Jack Bauer' is a fictional person in a made-up story on TV?