Obama DID call torturers patriots. Deal with it. NT

[grahamhgreen]

[Kalidurga]

1. Really Grahm I didn't read it that way

many people did not read it that way. I read it that some people in the war were patriots and other's well they tortured people and they were wrong. And that nothing is going to be done cuz it's history or some lame thing. So, yeah it is lame. But, it doesn't give rise to the monstrous claim you are making.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Point out where he made the distinction between those who tortured and those who didn't. You can't

because he didn't.

Full linear 3 paragraph excerpt from the press conference.

With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.

I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.

But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects. And that's the reason why, after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president

[Kalidurga]

5. I think it's implied in the paragraph breaks

but, then I am one of those weirdo's that think time and space can change the meaning of a phrase.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Read it as you will; what matters most

it that he did not outright condemn the torture or those who did it. You can weasel around forever with the specific words, like people did with Clinton's "Did not have sexual relations," but in the end he blinked when it came time to clean out the festering wound.

[Capt. Obvious]

37. He actually had his fingers crossed while saying it

[grahamhgreen]

80. This was vocalized. Paragraphs and sentence breaks were added after the fact.

[deurbano]

9. What is it important for us "not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect" about?

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

That's creepy enough on its own.

[brush]

28. Here ya go.

"A lot of those folks". Not all, and certainly, not the ones who committed torture. Did most of the people in law enforcement and national security commit torture? The answer is clearly no. Many in the CIA objected, protested and left their jobs because of it. These people certainly are patriots. And there were a lot of them."

Does that not say the people who left their jobs are the patriots, but certainly not the ones who committed torture?

[Demit]

63. I love this meme, that many in the CIA objected, protested, and left their jobs.

You're quoting directly from a thread someone started yesterday! Assertions that that poster made without providing evidence, any links to prove that what he said was true. If you can show a cite for his assertions—now yours—I think we'd all love to see it.

[robinlynne]

98. You are trying to rewrite a speech. Unfortunately you can not fix what he said.

[Motown_Johnny]

32. it says "a lot of those folks" not all

therefore not everyone who was doing that job were called patriots


deal with it

[Capt. Obvious]

38. NOT ALL TORTURERS ARE SODOMIZERS OF YOUNG BOYS

Glad we got that out of the way

[RedCappedBandit]

70. "doing that job"

Yeah, and given the context, we're talking about torture.

[sabrina 1]

114. I didn't notice that last sentence before: 'one of the first things I did was to

ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques'

I despise this language first of all. 'Extraordinary interrogation techniques'. He means TORTURE. America tortures! Everyone knows it, everyone HAS known it, for years. The only people in denial about it or unaware of it, are Americans.

But only SOME? Is there a list of which tortures are okay and which are not.

I remember the anger at the Bush gang when people learned what they were doing, the sheer depravity of it.

I guess they though people got over it. I cannot get over it. Some of what I read back then, it was, sorry, I just can't find the words to describe it.

[JEB]

132. You are exactly correct.

Torture is already banned by by International treaty which we signed. To not enforce such laws is also a crime. We prosecuted and executed others for equal crimes.

[WinkyDink]

96. So he's simply going out of his way to praise normal job-doers? And also feels the need to mix such

praise in with comments about torture?

Geez Louise, I'd like MY compliments from the POTUS all nice and cleanly separated from any "tortured folks" talk! Call me crazy!

[robinlynne]

97. It does, and worse. He said don't be sanctimonious about it.

[grahamhgreen]

119. If they're not patriots, then, what are they?

[nationalize the fed]

2. ^

It's a New American Century and all of DC is on board. Full Steam Ahead. The New "Defense" secretary provides a clue as to what is coming down the pike

...Previously, Ashton Carter was a senior partner of Global Technology Partners focused on advising investment firms in technology and defense, and an advisor to Goldman Sachs on global affairs...

...During the Bush administration, he was also a member of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's International Security Advisory Board...

...In 2006, he authored a report advocating use or threat of force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

If you don't like Torture and the New American Century perhaps you're a terrorist. Or a racist. The NSA will put you on a special list.

[Major Hogwash]

4. No, he did not.

YOU deal with it!!

[grahamhgreen]

110. Then what is the excuse not prosecuting someone who tortured innocent people?

[Hekate]

6. You are determined to misread the quote. Ask yourself why, and deal with it. nt

[Logical]

81. LOL, You are determined to misread the quote. Ask yourself why, and deal with it. nt

[DrDan]

7. that is certainly the way I read it

We have a horrible incident on 911.
The public is in fear and pressure builds to find those responsible and stop any further such acts.
Those directly involved decide to use "tactics" not typically used to gather info.
These "tactics" were all employed with the best of intentions and with utmost urgency - hence the use of "patriot" to describe those involved.

Those committing torture were not singled out as "patriots", but those trying to directly deal with this situation were. And some of those tortured.

[billhicks76]

11. Rape

Last edited Sat Dec 13, 2014, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)

This report didn't interview any detainees. It's all based on CIA memos that weren't scrubbed like the videos. You know way worse happened. Supposedly the interrogations the US military did on base included Iraqi interrogators sodomizing children in front of their parents to extract info. And I bet FOX news would defend it because Bush and Cheney were at helm. It's sickening. Even the Nazis called themselves patriots. Of course Cheney and the ilk defend themselves to save THEIR OWN ASSES. They use 911 to commit even more crimes and in my opinion facilitated that event. The shills at FOX should get public beatings for the crap they are saying today. It's disgusting. I hope they suffer soon.

[SomethingFishy]

91. It also didn't include anyone sent out of the country for "rendition"..

Yet people are defending it and defending ignoring it like this is a handful of traffic tickets.

[lovemydog]

8. No, he did not.

Watch the whole speech.

Read the whole text.

[cstanleytech]

10. No he didnt but even if he did call them patriots so what?

They are also giant douchebags for using torture of course and yes they can be both patriots and a douchebag that commits the crime of torture just like anyone here can be a douchebag and commit a crime but still be a patriot.
So my advice is learn to deal with the fact that we have some douchebag patriots just like we had some douchebag founding fathers who thought slavery was ok.

[WinkyDink]

93. One difference: In 1776 slavery was legal.

[cstanleytech]

105. Legal doesnt = right thing to do. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. He's a wordsmith master

I think he purposely worded it for ambiguous messages and signals for a reason so one could read into what they wanted.

He needed to reassure the masses that torture was wrong and we did it.

He needed to send a message to the intelligence agencies that you are safe. Hence the patriot message.

I can see how both sides of the argument ..yes he did ... no he didn't.


Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a humorous fumblerule used by English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.


Literally, the phrase means "avoid being unclear" or "avoid being unclear, support being clear", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the statement an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological phrase.

[sendero]

16. Exactly....

..... why take a stand when you can place yourself in the mushy middle and try to please everyone. This has been Obama's M.O. from the start and why he is a weak president.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. My take is... he did... but like I said

he's a master wordsmith and I can see how some would say he did not though I do not agree....since there is no accountability.

he said it the way he did on purpose.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. As Oprah said: 'you're a patriot'

I'm a patriot' We are all patriots''

Look under your seats and just move on.

[Jesus Malverde]

101. lol

[LittleBlue]

72. Excellent post. Rec

[MrMickeysMom]

107. Reminds me of the Ministry of Truth...

Yes we can't.

Let's look forward walking backwards

Nudge-nudge-know-what-a-mean?

[grahamhgreen]

121. Clearly the dog whistle he was using, let torture proponents know that

he thought of them as patriots.

The big whistle is his failure to prosecute such heinous crimes.

[woo me with science]

13. Of course he did.

Lots of vile, deliberate "2+2=5" being intoned through the telescreens today.

[kelliekat44]

14. So what!! All American "patriots" were terrorists by the definition we have now. Ask GB.

And they tortured soldiers and Native Americans as they saw fit.

[Bonobo]

15. "I understand why it happened." pretty much tells you the whole story.

It's like saying "I'm against rape, but she's hot so I understand why it happened."

Umm, no. You don't do that. Criminals are criminals and should be called criminals.

And yes, to the "patriot" question... yes, he was including the torturers and trying to explain their "lapse of judgment" and have us look at how they are to be forgiven because they are patriots.

Some of you all are in denial.

[KingCharlemagne]

17. Best parsing of the 3 paragraphs I've yet read. 'Denial' about captures the response

of those who keep trying to twist Obama's words to mean what they don't mean and to escape what they do mean.

Agents of the U.S. government, acting on orders from the highest level(s) of that government, routinely and systematically violated the laws against torture. Those agents broke the law and those who gave the orders and set the policies broke the law.

[Scuba]

18. +1

[robinlynne]

99. You mean the "mistakes" they made?

[99Forever]

19. I don't give a damn if he did or didn't. It's trivial and irrelevant.

What I do give a damn about is that he is once again giving a free pass to evil, making sure that it will happen again. Seems to sum up his entire tenure.

[treestar]

20. So we really are expected to believe he is for torture?

That's what you want us to believe?

[grahamhgreen]

23. Then why not prosecute?

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Because in HIS world, his actions have consequences ...

consequences that must be viewed and balanced. I know we all can stand on principles of right and wrong, with wrongs demanding punishment; but in his world ... the real world ... it's NOT that easy.

[grahamhgreen]

79. In the real world, failure to prosecute has been a boon for terrorism worldwide.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. No it hasn't ...

Besides your understanding of individual punishment as a deterrent to classes of crimes is flawed. Yes, rounding up criminals and executing them will stop THEM from committing another crime; it does nothing to prevent those inclined to commit that same crime, from doing so.

Stringing up every one of the torturers, will not stop torture ... Jailing every "Criminal Bankster" will do nothing to prevent the next generation of fraudsters.

[grahamhgreen]

113. So in your view, there is no reason for laws?

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. No ...

I didn't say that.

I said that you over-estimate the deterrent power of jail, even the death penalty, on crimes ... particularly, on things like torture and financial crimes (i.e., Wall street).

Those willing to torture do so because they have something they value more than their own lives (as misplaced as that might be) and corporations (banks) will always find someone willing to commit (thinly veiled) fraud in the name of profits. Jailing these individuals will not stop that ... and it certainly has not been a boon for terrorism worldwide (whatever that means).

[grahamhgreen]

127. It's not just a deterrence, it provides rehabilitation for the corrupt mind of the torturers,

As well as penance, and retribution.

Are you trying to say that these people tortured other people out of a sense of patriotism ("something they value more than their own lives&quot ?

And it has been a marketing point for the terrorists, in ther view, they recruit people to fight against the evil empire that tortures and bombs children.

[treestar]

90. So you think he's in favor of torture,

since he did not prosecute Bush?

I'm assuming some people have been prosecuted for torture since he took office. It's a crime on the books and someone may have been prosecuted.

[grahamhgreen]

122. All torturer should be prosecuted, can we agree?

[robinlynne]

100. Amazingly enough, it was with exactly your argument that people became nazis. If you do not

stand against (torture, in this instance), you are helping it to happen. Obama just defended crimes judged at nuremburg, so they would never happen again. Obama rationalized torture. You can not do that and be on the side of good.
capech?

[Jesus Malverde]

21. Du rec

Jesus

[MohRokTah]

24. He didn't, but the haters gonna hate regardless. eom

[still_one]

26. yup, it doesn't fit their talking point

[Bobbie Jo]

29. Did too! Did too!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[BeanMusical]

130. Nice selfie.

[Bobbie Jo]

131. ?

I know what you are but what am I?

That's it? Really?

Geeze people.

[BenzoDia]

30. Think about what are suggesting. That a sitting president would glorify torturers....lmao!

[grahamhgreen]

82. We agree that President Bush did, yes?

[BenzoDia]

104. Have a quote where he does?

[grahamhgreen]

112. Do we both agree that Bush was in charge of a regime that anctioned torture?

[Marr]

118. You have an odd way of thinking.

You seem to begin with what you want to believe, and then ignore everything that doesn't agree with that.

[WilliamPitt]

31. This is one of the most astonishing denials of black-letter reality I've ever seen.

Not just here.

Anywhere.

Ever.

Right after saying "We tortured some folks," he said this:

"And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong."

Where's the gray area?

[whatchamacallit]

33. Same cognitive dissonance

we got from bushbots. You'd think even the most devoted loyalist would be able to occasionally say "The president is full of shit on this, but I still support him", but no, reality simply gets wished into the cornfield every time.

[grahamhgreen]

109. And oddly, cognitive dissonance is often used by interrogators to bring their target into the fold.

[MisterP]

36. "A lot of those folks" means "a lot of those torturers"

it's like Grant Morrison's "Invisibles" or "A Beautiful Mind" with a tiny segment reading different messages in what everyone else is reading

[Horse with no Name]

75. Blows my mind. nt

[LawDeeDah]

76. He wasn't talking about the torturers in your selected quote.

Why don't you quote the whole thing in it's entirety? Dare you.

[WinkyDink]

94. Please. The "entirety" suggests nothing you claim. Why would he feel the need to demand we "not be

sanctimonious" about people doing NORMAL THINGS?????

"I'm eating dinner now. Don't get too sanctimonious about it."

[robinlynne]

102. He was talking about torturers the entire time. That is the subject. the only subject. torture repor

t. This was a response to 4 years of investigating TORTURE. nothing else. there is no else.

[grahamhgreen]

128. Outstanding point!

[NanceGreggs]

88. Still finding it necessary ...

... to "edit" Obama's remarks, I see. And I can see why it's necessary - because if you look at the statement IN FULL, it doesn't say what you want it to say.

"Right after saying "We tortured some folks," he said this ..."

But he DIDN'T say that "right after", did he, Will? There was a lot more to the statement - but again, what you've chosen to omit is inconvenient to the narrative you're trying to promote.

First you "edit" Obama's remarks, and now you're just out-and-out lying by saying "right after" he said something, he continued on with with something else - when he obviously didn't.

"Editing" the president's remarks to omit relevant sentences? Well, it's not just for FOX-News anymore!

[Sheepshank]

34. Of course that is the meme you'd like to press.

Truth and reality be damned.

the truth doesn't play well with your game plan, so I get it.

[LondonReign2]

39. So he didn't say the torturers are patriots?

Then he'll be holding those responsible when?

[Sheepshank]

41. really

your "if" - "then" scenario is pretty stupid.

[LondonReign2]

42. When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible?

Really simple question all of you scramble to avoid.

When?

[Sheepshank]

43. probably after all the screeching of

-he'll gut sopcial security,
-he won't ever support gay marriage,
- he hates, he does, he doesn't do, he calludes, he ignores...etc after all that crap trying to read Obama's mind about a million topics, you want me to read his mind on this too?

Again, a totally stupid post.

[LondonReign2]

44. Awww, poor baby

My posts are just so "stupid", I'm sorry they are so hard for you.

When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?

[Sheepshank]

45. that fact that you make up shit and then ask me to read someones mind is pretty idiotic

I will refuse to make up shit and will deal with facts only.

if you haven't been able to figure that out by now, you are a little beyond any help.

[LondonReign2]

47. Poor thing

I didn't realize asking when Obama was going to prosecute the torturers was "making up shit".

When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?

[Sheepshank]

50. provide some proof that no torturer under Obama has ever been prosecuted

you can repeat your stupid question ad nauseum, but it still doesn't make it answerable. you are not being clever, you are not painting me into a proverbial corner, you are not noble or wise or progressive, your repeated question is idiotic.

[LondonReign2]

52. You want me to prove a negative?? LMAO

When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?

You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, tight?

[Sheepshank]

56. why are you repeating your idiotic unansweable question...I don't read minds

your not being able to prove a negative is about as likely as my being able to read Obama, Congressional and DOJ minds.

Do you finally get it?

[LondonReign2]

61. Easy question

You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?

[Sheepshank]

64. You changed your question

and I resent that you are pretending the idiotic quetions wasn't repeated ad nauseum.

[LondonReign2]

66. You poor thing

Is this so hard to answer?

You want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?

[Jamastiene]

129. Wow, this one is an easy one to answer...

I want him to. I know that much.

I can't believe they wont' answer this question. The other one, they wiggled out of without answering, by claiming not to read minds, but this one, they could answer very easily. They should know whether or not they want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture.

[grahamhgreen]

123. How bout after the screams of the tortured have stopped?

[Sheepshank]

46. no, he didn't say torturers are patriots

spreading lies seems to be an on going meme on Du today.

Do a little homework so you don't come across as ignorant.

[LondonReign2]

49. Ah, good. Glad he didn't say torturers were patriots

Because of course saying they were patriots would be, you know, sort of a justification for not prosecuting those responsible.

When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?

[Sheepshank]

51. so you finally admit he didn't say it

sort of throws the rest of you statement into the realm of grasping at straws bwahha haa haa

[LondonReign2]

54. I didn't make a statement, I asked a question

When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?

You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?

[Sheepshank]

57. "Glad he didn't say torturers were patriots"

that is a statement...thanks

[LondonReign2]

60. Easy question

You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?

[Sheepshank]

65. moving the goalposts...something RW'ers do all the time

thanks for playing

[LondonReign2]

67. Really so hard to answer?

You want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?

[LondonReign2]

68. I guess it really IS too hard for you to answer

[JVS]

59. That's not happening because of the great danger of sanctimony

We must not lose sight of the danger of being sanctimonious.

[LondonReign2]

62. The pom-pom squad

is more interested in debating the meaning of "is" than discussing Obama's lack of actually holding anyone responsible

[Deny and Shred]

35. Why urge people to not be sanctimonious?

People were 'sanctimonious' about officials who committed torture. Was anyone sanctimonious about officials who were under pressure but didn't torture? No. He was speaking of those who committed torture.

What he did not say is torture is wrong and is a crime no matter when, no matter who - American or not, no matter what the circumstance.

He did not say torturers weaken the nation not strengthen it - those who tortured are not patriots.

He fought the release of the report. This isn't tricky and it isn't multi-dimensional chess.

[Beringia]

86. Obama also said torture is against American's values

instead of saying it is illegal and a crime.

[Deny and Shred]

92. Perhaps America has new values

Apparently, if you have the appropriate security clearance, or if you're a major campaign donor, no matter what you do there will not be jail time, trials, not even charges. Just the warmth blanket of 'Patriotism'.

[OilemFirchen]

40. How odd.

The thread directly below this on my Last Replied page is entitled "I am noticing a lot of full-blown denial over Obama calling torturers 'patriots' on DU."

What a fantastic coincidence, huh?

[True Blue Door]

48. Your one-line post is obvious trolling. Deal with that. nt

[Andy823]

58. Exactly. nt

[obnoxiousdrunk]

78. One line trolling is fun.

[MohRokTah]

106. +1,000,000,000,000 eom

[JVS]

53. He was very careful not to do that

But I'm not sure that such obfuscation is to his credit either.

[JaneyVee]

55. can we get some links?

Where did he say "torturers are patriots"?

[RedCappedBandit]

71. The entire excerpt is a justification for torture

Tough times, fear, confusion.. so we tortured some folks.

Given that context, I'm not sure who ELSE he would be talking about other than people who share in the responsibility FOR torture.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Well, he certainly didn't call them thugs, monsters, sociopathic criminals, or paid sadists.

As they so richly deserve.

[pa28]

74. Don't bother engaging with the flat earth society.

They'll argue semantics all day long if necessary to support whatever objective reality is convenient for them at the time.

Just don't do it.

[Rex]

83. He admitted that we (America) broke the law many times.

All these hangups on semantics. Clearly he said crimes were committed and now it will be interesting to see what is done about it.

[Marr]

117. Exactly-- acknowledging that 'we tortured some folks', and having no legal proceedings

is just... well, it's sickening, and it undermines the whole notion of law.

[Rex]

125. That is the whole point people are trying to make, but others keep pretending

this is all about hating Obama. You would think by now that they would realize that bullshit distraction doesn't work and never did.

[BootinUp]

84. Why would he even do that? Obama is smarter than about anyone on this stupid forum

why would he say something like that? Because he wanted to rile the left up? Seriously? Perhaps you should consider that you are mistaken about his meaning.

[WinkyDink]

95. Speak for yourself!

[840high]

103. Perhaps he's not smarter than

anyone on this forum.

[grahamhgreen]

111. Why would anyone not prosecute someone who tortured an innocent person?

[Marr]

116. Well, he did say it.

So maybe you need to revisit some of your other assumptions.

[Jesus Malverde]

89. bump..nt

[MrMickeysMom]

108. Dealing with it, step #1...

Admit there is a problem with leaders who deliver ambiguous meaning messages that are supposed to satisfy everyone's quest.

You can't please all of the people all of the time… and if the "base" were EVER your people, you certainly have not pleased them, Mr. President.

[Marr]

115. People who say the group he labeled 'patriots' was vague are arguing against Obama.

If it seems vague to you as to who he was calling 'patriots', well, that's because he was diffusing the blame. He was sort of casually lumping everyone into one group and saying, 'hey, they meant well'.

The entire over-arching message of that statement was one of minimizing the crime of torture. That is undeniable. The torturers and the people who instituted the policies were not tried or prosecuted. That is undeniable.

[grahamhgreen]

120. The reason for not prosecuting the torturers is

clearly because he feels they were acting out of patriotic zeal, and thus should be excused.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

126. And while we debate this Jamie Dimon and others are plotting the annihilation of all but the one

percent.

It is a very carefully planned event, will happen in 2016, and it will be very painful and we will deserve it because we as a collective whole in America are unwilling to do anything about it.