I am noticing a lot of full-blown denial over Obama calling torturers "patriots" on DU.

[Odin2005]

People don't want to admit that the man that they projected all their hopes and dreams for 8 years thinks tortures are patriots, it causes cognitive dissonance, and this causes people to rationalize what he said, claiming that he misspoke, or that he did not actually say what is on record saying, or that "Obama-Haters" are taking what he said out of context. They lash out at people who question their rationalizations, accusing others of "using Republican Talking Points", or of being right-wing trolls with "Obama Derangement Syndrome".

No. Obama called the torturers "patriots", quit trying to deny it.

[brush]

1. Please read this and re-consider the misinformation

"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?

[Odin2005]

2. Thanks for proving my point about rationalizing.

[Johonny]

11. Patriot-one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests

From Websters dictionary. Clearly by definition the word Patriot referrers to people that supported what the state was doing. The word should never, ever have been used in a rebuke of torture. It can ambiguously be used to claim those following the Bush white house or those opposed to it were the Patriots. It is an empty word here and a terrible word to have used.

Don't you think the ambiguity of the comment speaks for itself. Instead of a clear cut rebuke he went with a mixed message when there was no need. When America needed a clear cut calling out of torturers and a clear statement it was wrong, Obama went the middle road and sent a message that clearly could be read as praise for some folks. I'm not sure a clear rebuke needed to mentioned folks as Patriots. Since the proper definition of a Patriot seems to indicate support for the torturers. Whose a Patriotic in a country that was allowing torture? The people that objected certainly were morally right and might be considered in the future when the state authority has thoroughly rebuked torture: Patriots. But when Obama said those words?

The ambiguous mixed message is pretty much the calling card of the Obama legacy. It is almost certainly why he has trouble on the left and right with wavering support. Many people feel he rarely stands firmly for anything and Obama does take some blame for that.

[markpkessinger]

34. Nobody was taking issue with those who didn't participate in torture . . .

. . . so what was his point in telling us we shouldn't be too sanctimonious about it?

[helpmetohelpyou]

40. NAIL MEET HAMMER

[Aerows]

44. Amen to that! n/t

[SomethingFishy]

85. That's it right there...

Yeah they may have been able to play the "word" game, had Obama not called people "sanctimonious".

I'm sorry, "sanctimonious"? About torture? That, is impossible.

[ronnie624]

277. Exactly.

"Sanctimonious" about torture. How does a decent person not feel morally superior to someone who tortures people?

What a bunch of Bizarro World nonsense.

[malokvale77]

88. That stood out for me also.

On another subject: Your signature line.

I'm a seamstress and upholsterer (besides my wage paying job as a home healthcare worker). Everyone wants Neiman Marcus quality at Walmart prices.

I've gotten' to where I refuse work from certain addresses. If I have to give my work away, I prefer it goes to those more deserving.

[SammyWinstonJack]

93. +1. nt

[Odin2005]

159. Exactly! Funny how the apologists always forget the "sanctimonious" line.

[merrily]

84. "A lot" were Obama's exact words.

"It's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had," he said. "A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/us-usa-cia-obama-idUSKBN0G14YY20140801

[robinlynne]

153. no. it does NOT say that at all.

[Cha]

215. thanks brush.. they're the ones who are in Denial.. they seem to have a lot invested in believing

the President thinks "torturers are patriots".

It's pathetic and sick.

[roguevalley]

281. I found it profoundly disrespectful to say a bunch of 'folks'

were tortured, rather like a bunch of folks ate dinner together, or went camping. It was harsh to hear that said. The Nazis tortured people too and they were hung for it. We are a country in free fall right now. I can't tell you how hard it was to see him say that out loud. It was such a trivialization of a terror act to me.

No one can claim patriotism to me in this, none of us. We all bear the stain.

[Sheepshank]

3. yup...there is arsing don alright

and it's not at the the hands of those that are trying not get the full statement out there.
You should be embarassed pressing a lie.

[LondonReign2]

24. You want Obama to prosecute those resposible for torture, right?

[Rex]

28. Now now...we can't do that! It might hurt somebodies feelings.

Seriously the people carrying water for Cheney are the lowest form of life.

[LondonReign2]

31. It's all about trying to distract by arguing about what Obama *really* said

to keep the attention away from the fact that this administration has not, and will not, hold anyone responsible. Torture, lying to Congress, spying on Congress, it's all fine and dandy to them, because criticism of Obama is verboten.

I even had the genius above ask me to prove no one had been prosecuted.

[Rex]

33. Yeah these last 6 years are a real eye opener. I thought only the GOP did blind loyalty.

It is sad to see people that will not even consider justice as a method to deal with obvious torture and war crimes. And they get mad if you talk about it with other people!

Not a single one of the leaders that implemented and planned out the illegal invasion of Iraq will spend one day in jail. They have a legion of followers to make sure we don't even get a chance to talk about it.

[merrily]

86. +1

I learned that the center right shares a lot of traits with the right.

[Odin2005]

162. People don't want to give up the idea that Obama is the 2nd Coming of FDR.

Thus the denial.

[Art_from_Ark]

256. I gve up on that idea

when he started his accolades for Ronald Freaking Reagan, and seemed to ignore such Democratic icons as JFK and RFK.

[Rex]

257. I think some cannot stand FDR and his succesful social policies. The want free trade. No limits.

They won't engage in conversation, too busy yelling about fake purges. Deregulation doesn't bother them at all. And they don't even talk about Congress just giving the wealthy a huge bonus in buying a politician for a good price. Or screwing over the pensions of retirees. What a great gift this time of year to America. The investment bankers should be celebrating the incredible fortune of owning Wall Street and Congress.

Just wait, Exxon-Mobile is going to review our environmental policy to make sure it is up to standards. Might change a few things.

[grasswire]

55. exactly

the same people used the very same parsing techniques to deflect attention from Snowden's message. The very same people, the very same techniques.

[Rex]

58. It is always the same people.

If it comes to defending the status quo, the 1%, Wall Street, their precious Third Way think tank or just about anything else that goes against the established order...there they are. You can count on it.

Year after year.

[SomethingFishy]

87. You need to be less...

sanctimonious.

[Rex]

97. True, I wouldn't want to make anyone mad.

I wonder how he got such nice cufflinks? You think it is from years and years of charity work with the poor?

[SammyWinstonJack]

102. ...

[malokvale77]

106. Hah

I wish I could one day treat you to a few good brews and a really fine meal.

[reorg]

158. They are under a lot of pressure, those folks ... n/t

[Odin2005]

167. And we all know what they are going to say before we even read the posts.

The same used-up, regurgitated, intellectually dishonest talking points.

[Odin2005]

166. It's almost like they are professional Bullshitters paid to spew bullshit.

[grasswire]

169. heheh.

Well, if not that, we do at least know that they coordinate at a FB site.

[Odin2005]

161. Posters like him are proving my point about denial.

I thought this thread would end up a fly trap for people in denial and I was right. Sad.

[merrily]

230. Ah, I get it. It's like criticizing the lives and politics of Greenwald and Snowden to distract

from the reality of NSA snooping. Deny, deflect attention elsewhere, discredit the source without proving it wrong, go ad hom on a poster or group of posters, just anything at all.

[joeybee12]

101. The full statement changes nothing...

And trying to say it deos is just as bad as saying he didn't say it at all.

[Odin2005]

160. Obama was asking people not to get "sanctimonious" over torture.

That is asking people not to be outraged.

[Oilwellian]

181. It's worse than that

sanc·ti·mo·nious
adjective
pretending to be morally better than other people


Obama suggested we were pretending to be morally better than the torturers.

[malokvale77]

212. There in lies the dilemma

Those who object are not just pretending. We actually believe that torture is wrong.

[merrily]

232. And have a direct, verbatim quote. Even saw him saying it. Still can. Video at the link I gave

(so, so much for claims of "out of context)

[malokvale77]

244. Who you gonna believe...

Them or your own lying eyes and ears?

Night. I have a long day ahead.

[merrily]

247. Perfect! Night. Rest well and be productive (hopefully enjoyably) tomorrow.

[LawDeeDah]

4. B plus S plus lol

[Thinkingabout]

5. Why not provide the complete statement, it appears you are in fact taking this out of context.

[Fred Sanders]

7. Of course they are, the right wing con job of exactly doing that has been copied.....by "liberals",

to also attack Obama....how precious.

Obama versus Congress in about a month, prepare the battlefield by weakening
Obama...the propaganda meme is obvious, why are so many on DU falling for it?

But then I remember Fearbola on DU and I have the answer.

[Odin2005]

13. Oh look, somobdy proves my point again.

Lashing out and accusing people of being Republican tools.

[JaneyVee]

18. Your "proving my point" meme isn't working.

Mostly because they are using facts and context and you are just typing "proves my point".

[SomethingFishy]

89. Actually...

it is. And he's getting all sanctimonious about it.

[Cha]

216. Yeah, "proves my point" was disingenuous the first time ..now it's just looking stupid.

[LondonReign2]

32. And you are in favor of Obama holding responsible those responsible for torture, and I right?

[LordGlenconner]

36. "Fearbola!"

I love it!

[NYC Liberal]

39. DU loves the right-wing "Democrats are weak" meme.

I see it peddled here every day.

[okaawhatever]

10. I know. It's amazing so many on DU fall for it. nt

[Andy823]

20. It's the same old crowd

Over and over and over again, the same group post this kind of BS, and the same group fall for it without asking for any kind of proof whatsoever. Notice that the OP does not provide any proof, and the poster refuses to post the entire statement in context. It's pretty bad when you don't have to provide proof but instead just make up shit day after day and post it. These kinds of threads are nothing more than flame bait.

[LondonReign2]

25. While you debate whether he did or didn't,

you think Obama should prosecute those responsible for torture, right?

[LawDeeDah]

49. Here again is the complete statement, some in class are not paying attention so here goes:

"With respect to the RDI report, 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."

Key line here that is deliberately being ignored:

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.

Now, what I remember from Language class is when you use those, they and them, you are referring to the most previous group, person, persons you spoke about. Not anyone you may have mentioned before that, or after. So the President is definitely referring to the national security teams and law enforcement as 'those folks'.

To read it as torturers are patriots would be like this little story:

Marie and Bill were over last night playing cribbage. We had a few drinks, scotch was all our preference. Well, we had more than a few drinks because Beano and Jilly along with FooFra and Wadko joined us later. In the morning I counted the empty scotch bottles and in embarrasment shoved them in the closet in case my ma dropped over.

According to the misrepresentations of what Obama said, according to those folks, Marie, Bill and the whole gang were shoved in the closet, not the bottles.

[TM99]

72. I have seen this same bullshit over and over the last few days.

Yes, you are correct. 'Those folks' and 'law enforcement and our national security teams' are equivalent. Now, wrap your brain around this please. Who the fuck do you think was doing the torturing? Yes, it would be 'some but not all' of those folks - the law enforcement and national security teams.

So yes, Obama's carefully constructed little speech dismisses the torturing as 'understandable' because those folks were under enormous pressure and are real patriots for protecting us 'afraid' Americans. But hey we just tortured some folks. Wonderful how the asshole uses folks twice. Once to indicate the real human beings who were brutalized physically, sexually and psychologically, and then again to describe those brave patriots, of which only some but not all, actually did the fucking torturing.

It is disgusting how so many here rationalize this behavior just like the Republican rank and file have done with Bush and the invasion of Iraq.

[LawDeeDah]

96. No. Just No. Go back to class you get an F

[TM99]

98. Shall we discuss background and credentials then?

You are a true believer which is so pathetically fucking sad.

[LawDeeDah]

105. What is sadder is making shit up to make the President sound like a Cheney or a Rumsfeld.

Considering what forum you are on, THAT is what is very pathetically fucking sad. I would have no hesitation calling out a Democrat, I am not an oath taker for the party members in fact I have been very, very critical of the Clintons.

I see in Obama a very good man being shat upon from every direction, his words twisted in the most grotesque ways to attempt to paint him as a wall street robber torturer loving guy that wants to starve seniors - when there is every indication that he is Not any of these things and is working his ass off to get the best he can for us with the ugly hand he has been dealt since his Day One in office.

He doesn't need little gnats picking away at his choice of words to turn them into some evil and twisted play.

[TM99]

110. Only apologists like yourself are saying that Obama is like Cheney or Rumsfeld.

His speech let those men off the hook. He is simply another enabler to this whole sordid affair of post 911 politics.

And yes, actually he needs every fucking one of the 'little gnats' picking away at his choice of words. He is not perfect, a super hero, a Caesar, etc. He is an elected official who made campaign speeches against post 911 politics and then embraced, extended, and in some cases amplified them during his tenure in office.

Obama is actually the worst kind of evil as portrayed in his words - mealy mouthed, duplicitous, and passive. The torture that was done is no different than what occurred in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. It is against international laws, treaties, and conventions. Those who ordered it, enabled it, engaged in it, and justified it should have been prosecuted and still should be.

Instead, we get another Obama speech - this time he is lecturing us on being sanctimonious.

Fuck him.

[zappaman]

118. "Obama is actually the worst kind of evil as portrayed in his words"

Are you sure you are on the right website?

[TM99]

119. I am certain I am.

It is all of the apologists that make me wonder if they are.

But hey thanks for asking.

[zappaman]

123. Enjoy your stay!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

131. That one really sticks out doesnt it...wow, the hate for that man is amazing

[Cha]

221. "Fuck him" LOL

[bravenak]

225. Not gonna happen!!

There is a line way ahead of that person. My mother is in it.

[Cha]

226. ...

LawDeDaw got a bad HIDE.. she spoke the fucking truth.

Good Luck to your MOM, brave

[bravenak]

228. GD is like a wrestling pit.

I've been on juries more lately. Stupid alerts all.

[Cha]

237. I've been on a lot of juries lately too.. there was one good HIDE..

think you'd approve. But, the rest were abusing the system.

And, I was thinking snake pit.

[bravenak]

241. Snake pit too.

Our nightmares come true. Oh, well.

[Cha]

270. Guess who got alerted on for "Fuck him", LOL'? This was sent to me by a juror..

"Fuck him" LOL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5953363

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I've seen a few posts hidden for posting "fuck you" to a DUer. Is saying "fuck him" about another poster on the thread over the top? Or do quotation marks save it, even though no one is being quoted? I'm not sure what is alert worthy now.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 12, 2014, 11:51 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: TM99's post (#110) is the one that should be hidden. Not this one.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: posts have been hidden for less, as "contributing to rape culture": the party has to stop its slide toward soft-shoeing child rape because they know enough Dems will have their back when they soft-shoe *child rape*
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster was quoting the poster above. I did not read this as an attack on a DUer. I think! Um... Leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The person being replied to is being quoted - it does not appear to be an attack on a DUer, at any rate.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE

Getting alerted on for quoting another post.. WTF We weren't kidding.. bad alerts bad hides.

brave

[bravenak]

271. Gawd!!

I would say 'such BULLSHIT!', But somebody might alert.

[Cha]

273. REally! the thin skinned alerters have gone batshite..(watch that get alerted on).. I sent in my

first "alert abuse" to the Admins the other day.

I never alert.. except for the fucking racists who seep in from The Discussionist ..

[bravenak]

274. Yep. Me too.

I alert on super trolls. You can say 'piece of shit used car salesman' about the President and that's fine. But don't quote another poster. Cray cray. I only alert on the worst.

[Cha]

275. Yeah, supertrolls don't get a pass from me. but, apparently me quoting another poster is just too

much for someone to handle.

I got permission to post this because I wanted to highlight how many alerters are abusing the system. Where in the TOS does it say.. You can't quote other DUers in their posts? Hmmmm?

[truebluegreen]

120. Do you support President Obama not pushing for prosecution of the torturers, yes or no?

Why is it no one will answer this?....oh, wait....

[LawDeeDah]

122. Time is not up. Ask again in a while.

[truebluegreen]

125. When? Jan 20, 2017?

Unlike us, he's known a lot about this program for years.

[LawDeeDah]

128. When? Let me check my balls.

Everyone who can read has known some about this program for years. And yes, the President of the United States might just know a bit more than you and I.

[truebluegreen]

130. Yep. And he's said from the beginning that he's looking forward, not back.

And unlike us, he has known far more about the amount and brutality of this program. Unlike us, he has the ability to do something about this program--like for example invoking the international laws and treaties we are signatories to, that require us to prosecute torturers.

I don't give a crap about your balls.

[merrily]

249. The thread is not about the program, but about Pres. Obama's recent comment.

[treestar]

262. Theres a statute for that

I've been trying to find out more about if there actually have been prosecutions

We are asked to assume there have been none.

Under 18 USC 2340A, the first prosecution was

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/pub/2008/ij/HRB_Chuckie_Taylor.pdf

Will continue to look.

[robinlynne]

156. I think we SHOULD feel sanctimonious. SANCTIMONIOUS? We're talking about war crimes. He says not

to be sanctimonious. Think about that.

[Odin2005]

168. You are just reading into it what you WANT to read into it.

[merrily]

250. Fine comment, if you want to give me an alternative interpretation of his comments

that is rational. (I know you're only quoting others with sarcasm. So I guess I should not be clicking on your post to reply.)

[TheKentuckian]

234. Why you would think the full statement is helpful to this absurd spin is beyond me

Firstly, most of us heard it at the time it was clear as a bell in the moment and continues to be.

The President is clearly rationalizing and attempting to explain why such things might happen and he is clearly stating that he believes that some of the folks that stooped to torture were patriots acting under tremendous pressure in the shadows of the Fallen towers at the smoldering Pentagon.
Essentially, saying that things got well out of hand but we shouldn't be sanctimonious towards these well intentioned and decent folks in the worst situation doing a devilishly difficult job just because they all didn't come out aces and roses because who knows how they would truly fare in the heat of the moments, there has never been a time when heroes were not a premium.

I think what he actually conveyed is a hell of a lot more defensible and real than this wild eyed re - imagining of the speech, I would hold with it, I would vehemently argue that values aren't for easy moments, I'd still have a visceral reaction to the logic but it would be relatable and real.
I also think that most people that happen to see and somehow hear it that way also took it pretty much just like that but now even the triple filtered, diluted, and redacted report is still too nasty to fight on that hill so it is on to the Ministry of Truth type tactics to stave off the cognitive dissonance.

You've parsed out a nonexistent and contextually silly tangent out of this statement in order to allow yourself to swallow what went down and what still is going down by covering, wiping, and dangling for the monsters who did these dark age style acts in our names and that isn't even the bad part.
The bad part is the whole thing is an effort to avoid actually having to even honestly process the shit that went down and the covering and defending that is the current course.

That ground is also less fertile for scoring points in the arguing war game, I guess twisted and tortured comprehension of a plain statement requiring the very odd, brief, and bizarre tangent of

A) Weirdly taking time out to admonish people for somehow lumping in the unsanctioned, still employed or free to lie and gnaw his ass level of not in trouble bad guys with the people living our values, some maybe resigning and losing a career, a livelihood, pensions perhaps and probably living in fear of twisted, evil fucks sending a little of their famous retribution their way or toward their families. Clearly most wouldn't be in the loop at all. This is a nation deeply challenged to look at anything on a systematic level, you can't get people off the few bad apples adage enough to even see problems but this time with military and security personnel of all groups bring this as an immediate concern? Preposterous at best.

There is no crisis of delineation of torturers and people that had nothing to do with it to be making a quick point on it during an admission of crimes against humanity. That whole thing makes no sense in context especially. The most reasonable reading is that some that tortured were "patriots", winners of medals and commendations, holders of the highest offices and ranks. There might be one or two that pulled their platoons out of harms way or some such.

B) That Obama thinks sanctimonious means lumping people together unfairly or that the levels of sanctimony will be so epic in their scope that he must get in front of the rampaging mob sure to blame the data entry clerk at the local FBI office for torture.

is a better hill to die on than the give the monsters a pass lump of shit in the bottom of of a gully somewhere.

[merrily]

251. No matter what, the context is here. A link to an article with a video is on the thread.

It's now someone else's turn to either sit down and shut about context or explain to me how the content changes the statement, or even affects it a little.

This was no an unexpected question that caught him off guard, either. This is something he wanted to put to us.

[malokvale77]

108. The full statement...

in context, changes nothing. He used a weasel word (patriots) to excuse horrible crimes against humanity.

Do you approve of those crimes? Are you that kind of patriot?

[bravenak]

6. People say 'American's don't torture!!"

But we do. We always have. Then we pretend that the torture we used to do was not so bad, like slavery, internment camps, bombing rural villiages with napalm, trail of tears, smallpox blankets, etc. We want to look at ourselves as patriots. The good guys. Look at our electric chair. Torture. Well, sorry to break it to us, but, our 'patriots' that we hold up on pedastals and many that we call founding fathers held humans in slavery and beat and totured them. We are brutal. We always have been. We let these things go on for so many years......

I'd love to rewrite the history books and tell the truth that these patriots were brutal torturers. Like Thomas Jefferson. He tortured slaves. But he is always called a patriot. We see ourselves different than we are as a nation. What are we going to do about our brutal ways? Look at how we treat the least among ourselves if you need a clue as to why we are in this position.

[Puglover]

35. You have both feet on the ground.

Like myself, a realist. Good post.

I agree with someone up thread. Using the word "patriot" in a statement rebuking torture was ill considered.

Do I think Obama was calling the torturers patriots I do not believe he meant to say that. But sadly he spoke clumsily IMHO.

[bravenak]

150. I get so sick of the word 'Patriot'.

The rightwing loves it so much. I just can't.
I don't think he meant the torturers either. But I disliked the speech. Meh.

[Puglover]

187. It's used

so cheaply. So yeah I'm with you. I'm happy you post on this board.

BTW LOVE AK. Man the scenary is amazing!

[bravenak]

188. Thank you!!

It is so beautiful right now... Cold but sparkly.

[Puglover]

189. Gray GRAY

And gray here. Mild but gray, 300 days and paradise here we come!

Moving to the Northern Andes 10/15/15!

[bravenak]

191. The Andes?

That is awesome. I have never left the country. Yet. But when I do, I will go to south America. So beautiful. From now on I will stay in beautiful places to make up for the bullcrap.
I may be in a Red state, but at least I have Glaciers...

[Puglover]

194. Well there is a lovely room with separate bath in my home that has your

name on it! We are 1.5 hours north of Quito. I built my house so the guest rooms are ascessable from the outside court yard. Perfect and private for guests!

[bravenak]

196. You are too nice. I hope I make it there someday to take you up on that.

What a wonderful experience that would be. And I'm fun! Kinda. I read good books.
That sound so awesome, to build a dream home. One day I'll write a good book and twenty years later, I'll build one. I'd love that.

[chervilant]

236. And, apparently, this is the best time

to take time-lapse photographs of the Milky Way right where you are--for examples, check out Tim Ernst's latest project.

[bravenak]

240. Thank you.

I'll look him up. I live in the city, near downtown. Too much light to see all the stars.

[chervilant]

245. I love the Milky Way

I used to lay out in the back of my dad's truck, watching the stars and the two lonely little satellites that crossed the horizon at the same place and at the same pace, night after night. I think it would be worth the trip to get somewhere far from the ambient light, not only for the stars, but also for the Northern Lights.

[bravenak]

248. Might take a trip to Girdwood.

I always see something special out that way. We get icefalls from the cliffs down the Old Seward Highway. If you ever get here, take that drive down the Old Seward. You might see a beluga, sheep, moose, bear. I love that drive. You can see all the stars from there. And the Northern lights when the let us get a glimpse.

[malokvale77]

63. bravenak, you always speak thoughtfully.

May I add my 2 cents? Patriot in all it's forms is a weasel word to excuse all kinds of atrocities.

I've never considered myself a patriot. I don't like the company it keeps.

[bravenak]

91. I agree.

[malokvale77]

111. It concerns me...

when we can't get justice at the highest level of our Government. How will we ever get justice for the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, et al's of our nation?

[bravenak]

112. I don't think we ever will get justice.

But we have to keep fighting. That's all we can do.

[malokvale77]

127. I do not see real justice in my lifetime.

I do have 2 great children and 3 grandchildren to fight the good fight.

PS: I was recently told, right here on DU, that I was a terrible parent for standing up for civil rights.

[bravenak]

133. People will say anything nasty online.

I think I may need a little break soon. It happens from time to time.

[malokvale77]

142. Yes...

I had to take a break from the Texas forum. Some were not happy that I called out the bigotry.

I might need to take a break from DU altogether. It has become very toxic.

to you bravenak.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

136. The president should have them prosecuted, he would then also be for the drones or something

But he wont, no future president will

period

[bravenak]

141. We have been doing horrible things to people since the beginning.

We rarely prosecute ourselves for crimes against humanity. Look at our history of crimes against humanity if you need to guess why. When you found a nation on land theft, genocide, and slavery , you end up here.

[Odin2005]

171. If we went by Nuremburg, every Post-WW2 president should have been/should be hanged.

[Odin2005]

170. America was built on genocide, slavery, wage slavery, and imperialism.

The only reason people still believe that America is some awesome beacon of freedom is from 13 years of having their heads filled with propaganda.

[bravenak]

172. I learned on my own.

My teachers hated it. But I was always correct in my answers. I hate the word patriot.

[Odin2005]

174. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[bravenak]

177. That's pretty much it. When people say that they're a patriot, I wonder who they killed.

[merrily]

252. I've never called Jefferson a patriot and never been privy to unqualified praise of him that I have

not put in the context of his rape of Sally Hemmings and his "ownership" of slaves, including very his own children. Personally, I hate the bs about the Founders and the Framers and the colonists.

I'd love for you (or anyone) to re-write the history books to tell the truth, too. Until that happens, what is wrong with telling the truth on message board about something that happened this week?

[bravenak]

255. Nothing is wrong with telling the truth, ever.

People just have different truths and interpretations. I personally think he should have been harsher in his criticism. I also never though for a second that we would prosecute the big guys. We have committed so many crimes that we CAN'T prosecute them. Too many guilty parties. Our right makes right attitude started long ago and continues to this day.


I think we americans carry a false image of our society in our heads. I never really did.

[merrily]

258. I don't know much about what life was like in the 1500s (or earlier) in what we now

call "The Americas." However, I do know that Europeans brought a lot of bad things and bad attitudes to these continents and the islands off them, from Cortez and Columbus to the Pilgrims and beyond. And also that we are brainwashed into mindless jingoism from earliest memory, sometimes by people we love most.

I understood what Reverend Wright said in some of those oft-quoted tapes and why he said it. He was trying to shake up and displace that brainwashing.

[bravenak]

260. Exactly. I see us as brainwashed.

Once you wake up, you can't go back to sleep. America is sick. But it is not a new illness, merely another symptom of our congenital disease. We have always been sick. I just cannot be shocked by anything we do. I grew up knowing that somebody had to be chained to a cargo hold in their own feces in order for me to live here as second class. I'm so jaded.

[merrily]

261. and yet, as cynical as I think I am, I find I am still naive enough to be

capable of being surprised.

[bravenak]

265. It rarely happens to me.

I suppose I just have few expectations. I wish I found the revelations surprising. But after that soldier raped that girl (i believe it was in iraq) and killed her and her family to cover it up, I assumed we were doing exactly what we were doing. Feeding our endless war machine. Without war to distract us and kill us. We might actually have the wherewithal to focus our energy on the people. We never had moral authority. We are killers.

[merrily]

266. I'll have to try to read even more of your posts to see if I can learn that.

My stomach still twists unmercifully in revulsion from time to time.

[bravenak]

267. I feel bad for being so negative.

Sorry about that.

[merrily]

268. Except in unusual circumstances, I find being in reality trumps being in unreality.

No apologies due me.

[geek tragedy]

8. Go ahead and produce the exact quote if you are so certain.

Go ahead and show where he clearly said that the torturers were patriots.

[Capt. Obvious]

15. His fingers were crossed when he said it

[Andy823]

21. They can't

And they won't. They know it's it's pure made up BS, but they don't care as long as it is negative about the president. It's really sad when this kind of shit is allowed to posted day after day.

[LondonReign2]

26. But you think Obama should prosecute those responsible for torture, right?

[Rex]

29. LOL!

Good luck getting them to change their narrative.

[malokvale77]

74. They never will.

For the life of me, I cannot see what they are so afraid of.

It reminds me of Superman (for some odd reason).

Truth, Justice and The American Way. Sounds good in the comics.

[Rex]

81. I don't get it either.

The POTUS came out and said we committed crimes during the Bush era. Why are they so mad that we are talking about it? You would think dems would be proud that the POTUS spoke up.

Yet they act like it is world war III and the enemy is the truth and facts.

[malokvale77]

116. "Yet they act like it is world war III and the enemy is the truth and facts."

When they defend this shit I can only assume they benefit from it.

So yes, truth and fact are the enemy (to their pocket book).

[Odin2005]

176. From a psychological POV what is going on with them is quite obvious to me...

...as somebody going into the psych field. Obama serves as an object onto which all their hopes and dreams are projected, and thus any criticism of Obama is seen as an attack on their hopes and dreams.

[malokvale77]

185. You may be right.

I see it as a function of government and not any particular person.

I'm weird like that.

[laundry_queen]

201. Bingo.

Taken a few psych and sociology courses myself and it was really cool to read about stuff and notice those exact same dynamics at DU. Well, not 'cool' but interesting. Maybe a bit sad too in some cases, like this one.

[LondonReign2]

300. Still can't answer?

Not a damn one of you arguing about the meaning of Obama's words will answer a simple question.

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

[merrily]

259. I put the exact quote and a link to an article with a video near the beginning of the thread, in my

reply to Brush. (I found it with a few seconds of googling.)

ETA My Reply 84.

[marym625]

9. It's sad

I don't believe that anyone has to suddenly say "Obama bad!" Because of the statement he made. But trying to deny it just makes no sense. Either you agree and should say that, or you don't agree and deal with it. But it is what it is. No changing it

[woo me with science]

12. It's deliberate propaganda. Our equivalent of Orwell's "2+2=5,"

intoning constantly from the telescreens.

The purpose is to make you doubt your own senses and believe that others around you see something other than you do. To distort reality.

I put it in the same category as the endless stream of posts from the corporate talking points brigade blaming Americans for what is being done to us. The truth is that

We didn't vote for this.

We didn't vote for empowering banks to loot this country even further.

We didn't vote to gut pensions.

We didn't vote to open the floodgates for MORE purchase of elections.

We didn't vote for endless war.

We didn't vote for active covering up of the crimes of criminal bankers, while imprisoning a guy who tried to point out the crimes.

And we didn't vote for a government of the United States of America that breaks bones and sodomizes children in front of their parents...

...and imprisons those who confirmed the crimes, while labeling the torturers as "patriots."

We *are* a nation of captives. We have no impact on our government anymore:

Princeton Study: The US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
Citizens have no power or influence in policy anymore, despite "elections."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024819356

A society of captives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025927255

Democracy is an illusion. We are ruled by a corrupt, looting, torturing corporate cabal.

And like all governments that turn authoritarian, they have put in place a propaganda machine to deny reality itself.

[2banon]

22. Excellent Post woo..

s/b it's own OP, imo.

[polichick]

27. Thank-you!

[markpkessinger]

37. Amen and well said!

Thank you!

[Fred Sanders]

41. Bummer, man, why all the negative vibes?

Obama IS being taken out of context and no amount of foot stomping about the context changes that.

[GeorgeGist]

293. Funny.

[Horse with no Name]

54. yep. n/t

[arely staircase]

59. just because you can't understand somethin doesn't mean it makes no sense. nt

[ronnie624]

298. By all means, expand on this.

What is it, exactly, that you believe progressives here "can't understand"?

[arely staircase]

305. I never said progressives couldn't understand anything

I never mentioned progressives.

[ronnie624]

310. Then your post is gibberish.

It's too bad you can't take the time to be precise. You might have something of merit to say.

[Doctor_J]

68. Or TPP, or school corporatization, or mandatory for-profit health insurance

And many still don't get why we're unhappy.

[leftstreet]

90. +1

[SomethingFishy]

94. You got that right..

A nation of captives..

Captive by the government, controlled by the police and placated by the television.. Woo Hoo... We Are Awesome!

[liberal_at_heart]

95. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

107. ...

[Odin2005]

179. +1 eom

[laundry_queen]

202. ^^^this. nt

[NewDeal_Dem]

214. +1--

[whatchamacallit]

218. Too true, woo

[ronnie624]

299. Excellent post. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

14. NOT ALL TORTURERS

[Dr. Strange]

309. #notalltorturers

You can't draw the flag
If you ain't got the hashtag

[sabrina 1]

16. And Wall St Criminals were not committing crimes, they were immoral but

not criminal, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Orwell would be amazed ...

I remember how we were told that what we saw on the Rodney King tape was not what we thought it was either.

I'm stubborn, I believe my eyes over deep, long winded explanations of what I am supposed to be seeing.

I think it's all a big experiment to see how controllable we are. Can they succeed in telling us we didn't see what we saw and didn't hear what we heard.

[True Blue Door]

17. I am noticing a coordinated campaign to distract attention from the torture issue

with controversies over what the President did or didn't say.

Every issue has to be turned into an excuse to attack Barack Obama. Every...last...issue.

If Obama Derangement Syndrome is mentioned, it's because it's a real thing with a pungent smell that's hard to miss.

[Aerows]

47. Because the only reason why

people are against torture is because ... Barack Obama. Seriously?

[True Blue Door]

48. People who are against torture talk about torture.

They talk about how to bring its perpetrators to justice.

They do not spam sixteen thousand threads in four hours making the equivalent of an obscene phone call about something they claim "that darn Obama" (their favorite subject) said.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. This exactly. nt

[malokvale77]

145. Are you kidding?

Your "hands up don't shoot" tagline means nothing if you don't believe in justice at the highest level of our government.

[Bobbie Jo]

175. Read the post again

and then reassess your finger-wagging nonsense.

[malokvale77]

183. It was clear the first time.

You know what you can do with you finger wag.

[Bobbie Jo]

190. No

I believe I told you what you can do with yours.

[malokvale77]

195. You became my boss when?

Like I said, I read you the first time. I care less the third time around.

[bravenak]

197. I get bossed by Vanilla.

[Bobbie Jo]

211. *snort*

Been there....

[malokvale77]

220. Did I miss something, bravenak?

[bravenak]

223. No.

What you said reminded me of what I said to vanilla one day. When she was bossing me around.

[malokvale77]

227. Gotcha.

I'm just getting a little too old to being bossed by anyone.

I did miss the vanilla bossing, though.

[bravenak]

229. She beat on me until I had to leave the house!

I loved it!

[malokvale77]

243. I quit being beat on decades ago.

Difference is, he left the house. I owned it.

I'm off to bed now. I have a double shift tomorrow.

Later bravenak.

[bravenak]

246. Goodnight!!

Sweet dreams.

[Bobbie Jo]

209. What does that even mean??

i haven't heard "you're not the boss of me" since my kids were 8.

Next time, if you're going to respond to me out of nowhere, get your shit together first.

[Long Drive]

278. I Have Read This Entire Thread

The poster has his shit together. You just didn't like his reply to you. Sorry your children are ill mannered, really sorry.

[Bobbie Jo]

279. Outstanding!

Welcome to DU.

[Long Drive]

280. Thanks I Am Sure We Will Be BFFs

[Bobbie Jo]

295. No doubt.

enjoy your stay.

[Long Drive]

311. My Stay?

Are you the local innkeeper now too?

[Aerows]

60. Who is doing that? n/t

[True Blue Door]

62. How about the guy who posted the thread asking the "Fair and Balanced" poll question

of whether Obama should continue to aid and abet war crimes (and stop beating his wife)?

[Aerows]

66. It isn't exactly outrageous

to say that someone is aiding and abetting war crimes by failing to prosecute war criminals.

It's bald truth.

Do you *honestly* think that "rectal feeding" of human beings isn't a war crime and shouldn't be prosecuted? Forget who is President for a moment and focus on that question. Should those responsible for those actions be not only allowed to keep their jobs but are protected from any liability?

[True Blue Door]

69. You haven't prosecuted war crimes either.

I guess you're aiding and abetting them, aren't you?

Oh, wait, you don't have the authority to prosecute them. Guess who else doesn't?

Oh, but what am I saying? Authority-shmority! Constitution-shmonstitution! He's "Obummer" - he's not giving you your jollies. He made the sky cloudy on your beach day.

[Aerows]

78. Did Eric Holder

suddenly disappear and not work for President Obama, or am I just daydreaming there was a man with a mustache that held the post of Attorney General? You know, that guy that was part of the Cabinet and served at the bequest and orders of that other guy ... what was his name, it started with an O. Gosh, I seem to be forgetting huge chunks of history.

There is no shortage of amnesia going around here, none at all.

[malokvale77]

138. Yah, because Aerows has that power.

You are freakin' amazing the way you twist and extort.

[laundry_queen]

204. It's unreal, isn't it?

Lots of twisting is because of their own cognitive dissonance. It would be kind of funny to watch if it was about something less important and horrendous than torture.

[malokvale77]

224. Unreal is right.

There is nothing funny about torture. It is sickening to see people on here twist themselves into knots over this because ... what? I really don't know anymore.

[malokvale77]

147. You are becoming a joke...

with that "beating his wife" bullshit.

I earlier said that you are at least amusing. I take that back. There is nothing funny about you.

[zappaman]

64. Yeah, no kidding.

Let's just forget what pieces of shit we had between 2000-2008 and attack Obama.
Unfuckingreal.

[True Blue Door]

67. Precisely unfuckingreal.

As in, I don't believe this is a legitimate phenomenon by DU users expressing their opinions. This is coordinated propaganda to divide us and distract from the issue.

[zappaman]

70. It's the same old crowd

The "I'm oh so much better of a Democrat than you are because you worship Obama and think he is great and also think Hilary is inevitable even though you've never said it and don't you wish you were as amazing a Democrat as me?" crowd.

The kind of shit you would expect from the comment section of Yahoo or Fox...

[Cha]

219. Exactly, TBD.. not wallow in their self made quagmires of twisting the President's words to make

it seem like he was admiring the torturers for being patriots.

[LondonReign2]

301. And when exactly do you suppose Obama will get around to starting to

"bring its perpetrators to justice"? I mean, you think he should bring its perpetrators to justice, correct?

[True Blue Door]

307. This isn't about Obama! When are you going to get that?!

Sorry to inform you, but an issue is not defined by how many excuses it gives you to attack the President.

[LondonReign2]

312. Another one who can't answer

except to screech "leave Obama alone!"

[SomethingFishy]

104. So your take from this thread is "you are trying to distract from the torture issue"

I'm surprised you didn't use the word "sanctimonious".

Funny thing, from my perspective, it's you and your "eye rolls" who are trying to avoid the issue, which is arrest, and prosecute for violations of the Torture Convention that we signed and ratified.

A poster in this thread keeps asking "you do want Obama to prosecute for torture right?" but it seems that only the people suffering from "Obama Derangement Syndrome"™ care about actually arresting and prosecuting the "folks" responsible.

[malokvale77]

149. This

For crying out loud. There are some really deranged "folks" here.

[Bobbie Jo]

19. I'm noticing

A lot full-blown disagreement over the willful mischaracterization with regard to "Obama calling torturers "patriots" on DU."

The insipid browbeating and repeating ad nauseam doesn't make you right by any stretch of the imagination.


Waiting for the next 500 post thread to pick up where the last 5 left off.....

Can we just make an official thread to keep this shit straight?

***Official Browbeating Thread*** part 16.

Good Lord.

BTW....you're WRONG. Your turn to call me a "torture apologist."

Asinine.

[LordGlenconner]

79. +1

[2banon]

23. Cognitive Dissonance is alive and well here..

nothing to see here, move along.

[BeyondGeography]

30. No matter how many threads like this get launched

People with basic reading comprehension skills are not going to cry uncle.

[helpmetohelpyou]

45. They don't want to believe it , it's all they have left with this President

If they lose this too...

[CakeGrrl]

38. Quote?

That should end this pretty fast.

[great white snark]

42. Wish they'd make up their minds regarding the importance of what he says.

All them purty speeches and all....

Hello fellow torture apologist, I'm off to hold a steak in front of my dog and not let him have it.

[helpmetohelpyou]

43. Does Obama think of himself as a patriot? I would say yes

So ..why are people so surprised or trying to spin it by saying it was taking out of context ? He knew exactly what his comment meant.


Some of you guys are funny trying to spin it this way and that way.

Obama knows exactly what he said and he meant it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025947434

[Aerows]

46. The circling of the wagons

on his remarks are ridiculous. How hard is it for a leader to say "Torture is wrong, we were wrong for doing it, and I'm not going to try to justify it."

That's all that needed to be said. No, instead he acted like everyone should ignore the fact that our nation broke international law and committed a grave crime against humanity.

[fishwax]

50. I think it pretty clearly can be read either way

[JoePhilly]

51. Yes ... Obama loves torture.

Thinks its great.

Wants to water board Americans in his FEMA camps.

[whatchamacallit]

53. False framing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5951254

[JoePhilly]

61. Wait, so you are saying that ...

... something Obama said before the release of the Senate report, can not be used to claim he's a huge torture fan?

I'm not so sure ... I'm getting the sense that much of DU has decided that Obama's love of the Bush torture program is far worse than the actual Bush torture program.

The most important thing I think, is that Dems keep fighting with other Dems about which of set of us Dems are most responsible for the Bush torture program.

[whatchamacallit]

71. Some are projecting the "Obama is a torture fan/Obama loves torture" slant

as a way to make people's disappointment seem ridiculous. He isn't a fan of torture, but he's an apologist for torturers.

[JoePhilly]

73. So he's against it, but covering for it ... why?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5948771

If he thinks torture is patriotic ... as the link above says ... he's a fan of torture.

[whatchamacallit]

76. You tell me

Where are the prosecutions?

[malokvale77]

157. I've seen a lot of that on this thread...

and quite a few more on DU lately.

It sounds much like "fear" to me.

I don't know if it is fear of being had or fear of being found out.

They are definitely scrambling to shut down any conversation.

[whatchamacallit]

164. Yeah, mis-frame, discredit...

Lather, rinse, repeat...

[The Blue Flower]

52. "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"

Maybe he meant it that way?

[arely staircase]

57. why are you so worried about people who don't hate Obama?

Just enjoy your own hate.

[Marr]

65. Yep. I also think there's a big dose of plain old, 'can't admit I was wrong'.

The hardcore loyalists have spent so much time fighting with the real reality-based community that it's partially personal. I expect many would just go Republican before they'd admit those dirty people to their left were right.

[malokvale77]

99. You could be right.

I compare it to the Republicans who keep voting against there own best interest.

They just won't accept that they might have made a mistake.

My father used to have a reply to this behavior. "I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken."

[morningfog]

75. It's double thinking and cognitive dissonance.

They think he is infallible and feel a need to defend tooth and nail everything he says.

[darkangel218]

82. +1000

[Oilwellian]

200. And the sad truth is...

He will never care about them, the way they care about him.

[Thinkingabout]

77. And the full blown attempt to extract a few words from Obama's statement

Is to accomplish what?

[malokvale77]

198. As opposed to

pretending he didn't say what he said.

What does that accomplish?

[Thinkingabout]

205. What else did you hear him say at the same time?

[Jesus Malverde]

80. DU Rec

Jesus

[NanceGreggs]

83. Yeah, there's a lot of people ...

... denying that Obama called torturers "patriots". That's probably because he didn't.

I'd expect the same type of full-blown denial if you said that Obama wore a dress and heels to the last SOTU address - because he didn't.

It's just amazing that some people will deny that something was said just because it wasn't said. They should be more rational and just keep insisting that it was said, even though it wasn't.

[joeybee12]

100. He did say it...

Amazing denial.

[NanceGreggs]

109. Really?

Can you provide the full quote where Obama said "torturers are patriots"?

Oh, and I mean an actual quote - not the BS about, well, he said this, but what he really meant was something else.

[whatchamacallit]

114. In so many words

No, he didn't make the exact direct statement you demand, but his message is clear to anyone rational enough to hear it. Essentially, "don't be so quick to judge patriots under duress".

He was not simultaneously referring to two separate sets of people (heroes and villains) in those comments. Such parsing is nonsensical.

[NanceGreggs]

117. I asked for a direct quote.

What you've given me is the same old BS - his message was clear, what he meant was, etc.

He also never said "don't be so quick to judge patriots under duress".

And please don't feel restricted to that one press conference. Feel free to comb through any of Obama's remarks over the years, and see if you can come up with anything even remotely resembling calling torturers "patriots".

I mean, if he so blatantly and clearly said it once (according to you), surely that wasn't the only time.

[whatchamacallit]

121. So who are the patriots he's referring to in his comments?

[truebluegreen]

124. <crickets>

They just can't seem to answer that question, can they?

[NanceGreggs]

134. The very people ...

... he specifically spoke about in the sentence preceding the "patriots" comment:

"... 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."

In very plain English, he pointed out the fact that people in LE and nat'l security had a very tough job and were under enormous pressure in the aftermath of 9/11.

Would anyone really deny that reality? As a NYC native with two friends who were NYC cops at the time, I can tell you that the pressure they were under WAS enormous, and many of them rose above and beyond the call of duty in dealing with panicked citizens, people who were searching for loved ones who never came home, the possibility that another attack might be imminent, etc. - along with dealing with their own grief over fallen comrades.

So I have no problem with Obama saying that a lot of those folks were real patriots. A lot of them really were.

[whatchamacallit]

140. Lol... Who is the "we" in "We tortured some folks"?

Help me untangle your web.

[NanceGreggs]

144. Oh, I see you're going with the Will Pitt version of events ..

... where Obama said "we tortured some folks" and then immediately followed with "and a lot of them were patriots".

Except that's not what happened. Try reading the entirety of the remarks.

[whatchamacallit]

146. I have, repeatedly

If you have, you either have a problem with comprehension or candor.

[NanceGreggs]

148. The statement is VERY clear ...

"... 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."

It would seem the comprehension problem arises when one insists that "those folks" are a completely different group than the one he spoke of in the immediately preceding sentence.

[whatchamacallit]

154. Again

why admonish us to not be sanctimonious about the subjects (the only people mentioned throughout) if they were not part of the "we" who tortured? Your bizarre highlighting of sentence fragments to create an alternate meaning is pathetic. Only the most deluded will buy it.

[NanceGreggs]

163. Hey, just stick with the Will Pitt version ...

It's much more to your liking. According to Will's post today ...

"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."

Of course, anyone who has actually read the transcript of this press conference knows that the one statement did not immediately the other. But hey, it's the much more palatable version of events for those who like statements taken out of context and presented as though they were spoken in a way they weren't.

Check out FOX-News - they do that kind of editing all the time, and they're extremely popular with a certain crowd.

[whatchamacallit]

165. I'm not borrowing from Will Pitt

I'm just one of many on this board who see this for what it is.

Here's an Illustration:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025952248

[NanceGreggs]

178. No, you're right.

It makes perfect sense that the man who ended the use of torture, has now released the report on torture, and has made numerous statements about how despicable he finds the practice, would stand up in front of the nation - and the world - and say that torturers are "patriots".

I think this is just the tip of the Obama-loves-torturers iceberg. Surely there must be dozens of other statements Obama has made that are pro-torture.

Why don't you run along and find them, and report back when you've unearthed a few of them?

[whatchamacallit]

186. I don't accuse Obama of being "a torture lover"

That's your framing. I accuse him of equivocating for political expedience. He flat out admits we tortured. If as you claim, he finds torture repugnant and criminal, we can expect him to pursue justice for the victims, right?

... right?

[laundry_queen]

207. +1

agree with everything you have said here.

[whatchamacallit]

213. :)

[NanceGreggs]

282. Prosecution is a different topic.

Why don't you try sticking to the topic at hand?

If, as you believe, Obama thinks that torturers are "patriots", surely he must have made other statements that reflect that position. Or maybe just one or two, here and there.

But there aren't any, are there?

According to the version of events you believe, Obama - despite his consistent stance on torture and its use - stood up and told the world that torturers are "patriots". Just like that, out of the blue - he decided for one moment in time to completely go against all of his statements, before and since, and just say, "oh, and by the way, torturers are patriots."

And then the sneaky bastard stated it in such a way that only 'certain people' would get his real meaning - wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and all that.

Yes, that makes perrrrffffect sense. Really.

[whatchamacallit]

286. Your argument is ridiculous

There are no other examples because Obama doesn't, in general, consider torturers to be patriots. Faced with an impending, embarrassing report, he set the tone for looking the other way with sophistry about what can happen to good people in scary times. In other words, 'let's not be sanctimonious in judging these people because I'm not going to do shit about it'.

[NanceGreggs]

288. You're right.

It is perfectly ridiculous to think that a POTUS who has been outspokenly against torture from Day One of his administration wouldn't suddenly decide to say the EXACT OPPOSITE in front of the world.

Your theory makes perfect sense. Really. Really, really, truly. It does, yeah.

[whatchamacallit]

289. Yeah well

his rhetoric and actions don't always match, do they? Politicians say a lot of things. The proof of his commitment to justice and human dignity will be his response, which so far, is pretty fucking weak.

[NanceGreggs]

290. Again you need to ...

... change the subject. Could that be because you're losing the argument re the topic being discussed?

[whatchamacallit]

291. Astounding opacity

We can bicker forever over what the president really meant. He admitted we tortured. The report details heinous crimes. Let's see what this heroic constitutional scholar does about it.

[LondonReign2]

302. "Prosecution is a different topic. Why don't you try sticking to the topic at hand?"

LMAO. Yes, that is exactly what the pom-pom squad wants -- endless arguing over what he *really* said. Anything to keep the topic off what he has done, or failed to do. Torture, lying to Congress, spying on Congress, and NO ONE has been held accountable.

Distract, distract, distract, but under no circumstances discuss actual actions.

[NanceGreggs]

306. I'm not the one who changed the topic.

But I notice that whenever the "he called torturers 'patriots'" crowd start losing the argument, they change the subject.

[OnyxCollie]

272. About "folks,"

Propaganda Techniques
From Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Propaganda Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Quoted at http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/home.htm and http://www.vcsun.org/~ilene/secured_305text/propa.html

Plain folks
"Plain Folks" is a device used by politicians, labor leaders, businessmen, and even by ministers and educators to win our confidence by appearing to be people like ourselves- "just plain folks among the neighbors." In election years especially do candidates show their devotion to little children and the common, homey things of life. They have front porch campaigns. For the newspapermen they raid the kitchen cupboard, finding there some of the good wife's apple pie. They go to country picnics; they attend service at the old frame church; they pitch hay and go fishing; they show their belief in home and mother. In short, they would win our votes by showing that they're just as common as the rest of us- "just plain folks"- and, therefore, wise and good. Businessmen often are "plain folks" with the factory hands. Even distillers use the device. "It's our family's whiskey, neighbor; and neighbor, it's your price."

Plain folks wouldn't torture people, but John Brennan's henchmen would.

[NanceGreggs]

284. ...

...

I am going to assume that you actually intended to be funny. On purpose.

[OnyxCollie]

292. I've always been good at entertaining children,

and considering the juvenile, formulaic pablum that is your "writing," it appears to extend to the simple-minded as well.

[Odin2005]

184. Even if your interpretation of the President's words is correct it is still damning.

Why? because there has been very little "patriotic" done by the "national security" people in the last 60 years. Unless you think overthrowing democracies is patriotic.

[malokvale77]

203. "law enforcement and our national security teams"

Direct quote, right.

Those are the patriots he was referring to. Those are the people involved in torture.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[truebrit71]

263. Bingo!

Who was doing the torturing if not "those folks"....???

Staggering the level of denial....

[NanceGreggs]

285. Yes, those were the people he was referring to.

And he said that "a lot of them were patriots".

Not ALL of them, but A LOT of them.

So by saying some but not all, he was leaving some people in LE and nat'l security OUT of the "patriots" group.

Who do you think he was excluding? The people in LE and nat'l security that didn't file reports on time? Maybe nat'l security people who had coworkers clock-in for them when they were late for work? Maybe the cops who stole their colleagues' lunches out of the communal kitchen down at the precinct?

Exactly WHO would a POTUS - who has been consistently outspoken against torture - exclude from those who are "patriots"?

Could it be - I don't know - the TORTURERS?

[joeybee12]

115. The actual quote, two paragaraphs full confirms it...

He talks about torturers being people who worked under difficult conditions, and yes they did torture, and yes we must remember the hard job and they were patriots...so if you stupid fucking excuse it that the exact quote is not "torrturers are patriots" that's probably the most pathetic debial out there...and you're apparently not alone.

[NanceGreggs]

126. No, he didn't.

He talked about "our law enforcement and our national security teams" being people who were working hard under enormous pressure. Are you really saying that ALL law enforcement and nat'l security people were torturers?

Here's the exact quote:

"... 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."

He also never said anything remotely close to "and yes, they did torture and we should remember the hard job they had and they were patriots". Not. Even. Close.

I notice that a lot of the "he called torturers 'patriots'" contingent insist on paraphrasing what was said, as you have just done. Why do you all find the EXACT quote too "inconvenient" to deal with? Is it because the exact quote so obviously doesn't say what you want it to say?





Clearly, in very plain English, "those folks" he referenced in the second sentence are "the law enforcement and national security teams" he referred to in the previous sentence. He then went on to say that "a lot of those folks" are patriots.

[Nevernose]

139. Who do you think was doing the torture?

It was "the law enforcement and security teams." You left out the paragraph BEFORE the one you posted. You know, the one in which he talks about "torturing some folks." That's disingenuous, and so is anyone defending Obama's failure to prosecute ANYONE related to a decade kid torture.

[NanceGreggs]

173. Dunno.

My first guess would be that the people doing the torture were actually the people doing the torture. And they were more than likely members of nat'l security. (Duh.)

That's probably why Obama said "and SOME of them (LE and nat'l security) were patriots", instead of saying that ALL of them were.

But according to some here, Obama was calling the "torturers" patriots, and was implying that those who didn't torture were not patriots.

Because that makes sense, right? Just stands to reason that the man who ended the use of torture once he was POTUS, and has now released the report on torture for all to see, would call torturers "patriots" not only in front of the nation, but in front of the entire world.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Sure it does.

Yes, indeedy.

[Nevernose]

192. That's actually the clearest take on that position I've seen yet.

And while there's a little snark at the end (but I loves me some snark!), the rest of that post could be an OP in its own right. Most of the people on "your side" make it seem like a grammar battle, and therefore y'all are on the losing side of that. Grammar don't lie. The comments were clear. The problem is, they were clear to people in entirely different ways .

Personally, I think he DID say some of the torturers were patriots. Not only was he trying to be magnanimous, but it's probably an accurate statement: a bunch of guys in the CIA didn't wake up one day wanting to torture Arabs, they legitimately (and totally wrongly) thought they were protecting America. He also said it a few years ago, while he was still trying to get along with Republicans.

I think the difference in opinion here is that may of us feel that the torturers should be brought to justice, regardless of their motives.

[NanceGreggs]

283. It's quite simple.

When Obama described "a lot of folks" as being "patriots", he obviously left some people OUT of the mix - he said "a lot of", not "all".

So you either believe that the people "left out" are the torturers, or he included the torturers in the "patriots" group, and the people left out are - I don't know. The people in LE and nat'l security that didn't file reports on time? Maybe nat'l security people who had coworkers clock-in for them when they were late for work? Maybe the cops who stole their colleagues' lunches out of the communal kitchen down at the precinct?

Being possessed of common sense, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the man who ended torture within days of being installed as POTUS, the man who has just released the report on torture for all to see, the man who has - time and again - spoken out against torture, in all likelihood - out on this limb here - said "some" were patriots and not "all", because he was EXCLUDING THE GODDAMNED TORTURERS.

Just going on common sense here. And logic. And Obama's outspoken stance on the use of torture. And the fact that he never expressed anything remotely close to "torturers are patriots" other than (allegedly) this one brief shining moment in time.

But, hey - as so many keep trying to do here - let's just throw common sense, logic, previous and subsequent positions and behaviour out the window, and get on-board with this idea that all of that shit doesn't enter into the equation.

Obama called torturers "patriots" - and it doesn't have to make sense, right?

[Cha]

233. "the man who ended the use of torture once he was POTUS, and has now released the report on torture

"..the man who ended the use of torture once he was POTUS, and has now released the report on torture for all to see, would call torturers "patriots" not only in front of the nation, but in front of the entire world."

Precisely nailed it. Thanks Nance.

[DirkGently]

297. It's a false concern though, right? No one's criticizing

people who simply did their jobs are we? There is no criticism at all about people "under enormous pressure" who didn't chain people to walls or lock them in boxes in the dark.

So the entire statement is a strawman on Obama's part. He implies he is concerned that no one unfairly criticize people who did their jobs in an upright, legal, moral fashion, when in fact that is not the issue at all.

The entire theme of worrying about not criticizing non-torturers as a response to criticism of torturers is a canard. It's like saying we have to be considerate of good Catholic priests when when we condemn pedophile Catholic priests. There is no real danger of confusing the two, so the entire comment is a deflection.

[NanceGreggs]

308. Yes, it's a false concern.

Because no one would ever broad-brush an entire group of people on the basis of the bad behaviour of a few, right?

Take cops, for instance - no one would ever say that ALL cops are bigoted bullies, right?

No one would ever, ever do that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

296. I was an English major. You weren't. They would have asked you to switch majors.

The binary thinking you display is better suited for a business degree anyway.

[MannyGoldstein]

129. The most torture of all is inflicted

on the English language.

It's like an alternate dictionary exists for a certain group of folks.

[NanceGreggs]

137. Yeah.

Like the group of folks who "edit" Obama's remarks to leave out their context, or the ones who keep paraphrasing what Obama said, instead of addressing the actual quotes in full.

But there's an agenda to be followed here, isn't there? And that agenda requires "telling" people what Obama said and "interpreting" what he meant, instead of suggesting they read the comments that Obama actually made in their entirety.

[malokvale77]

180. This Manny...

I guess in the English language, words can mean what ever suits our purpose.

If I say "some folks" on Du are dumb fucking idiots, that makes me innocent of calling "anyone" on DU as being dumb fucking idiots.

So saying they were patriots, doesn't mean saying they were all patriots.

Do I understand that correctly? I'm quite confused. Not really. I see clearly.

Some folks on DU are dumb fucking idiots.

Don't take this out of context.

[Odin2005]

182. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, Nance.

I know it's hard to admit the person you have projected all your hopes and dreams on is a suck-up for the Establishment, I had the same cognitive dissonance for years, but I got over it, and you need to, too.

[Cha]

235. You're the one who's dancing on the river Nile..with your "proved my point" crap digging yourself

deeper and deeper into your own quagmire, Odin.

[NanceGreggs]

287. No offence, but ...

... I tend to dismiss people who speak in cliches as having nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

And 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... before someone alerts on this as "disruptive", a "personal attack". etc.

But congrats, in any event. With the use of "denial ain't just a river", "suck-up for the Establishment", and "cognitive dissonance", you DID hit the cliche trifecta all in one post!

[Marrah_G]

92. Imagine for one minute if...

You replaced Tortured, with Raped or Raped Children (which it also was) .... Would it still be easily excused? Have Americans become so used to the word torture that it has lost it's real meaning?

[darkangel218]

103. Torture should never be accepted

I grew up in a society where the totalitarian government was torturing its people. Openly and behind doors.

We are a democracy. We don't tolerate torture ( or so I hope to whatever God /force is out there)

[SolutionisSolidarity]

132. It seemed clear to me that he was excusing the torturers.

Why would he warn us not to be sanctimonious towards those in the intelligence community who were NOT torturers? That doesn't make sense, how can one make a claim of moral superiority against someone who has not be accused of wrong-doing? Obviously the people in these "tough jobs" working under "enormous pressure" included the interrogation teams. He left some wiggle room that he didn't think this statement applied to all of the torturers, but it's not like any of them were prosecuted either.

Edit: I will add that it's not like the America public seems to give much of a damn, so how can I fault Obama? Amoral people elect amoral leaders.

[muriel_volestrangler]

135. One point: the paragraph break the White House put in is a bit misleading

Here's him speaking - start at 1:43

I think here's a more representative transcription:

With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, umm, 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; uhhh, 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 ... umm.. you know, 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. And my hope is, is that this report reminds us once again that the character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things are hard.

And when we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line. And that needs to be -- that needs to be understood and accepted. And we have to, as a country, take responsibility for that so that, hopefully, we don't do it again in the future.

The 'but having said all that' comes without a break after 'real patriots' (about 3:14). Which I think reinforces the point that he knew he was giving excuses for the torture.

[Oilwellian]

217. Whoa! I didn't catch this before...

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.

What fresh hell is this? He only banned SOME of the torture techniques? No wonder he won't prosecute.

[helpmetohelpyou]

242. Yeah , I started a thread about it , Obama is involved in this also

His hands aren't clean



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025947434

[markpkessinger]

143. Whether or not he specifically called torturers "patriots" . . .

. . . the thrust of his Aug. 1 statement is to soft-pedal war crimes, and to rationalize his own refusal to prosecute the same. That comes through loud and clear whether or not the claim of calling them patriots holds up. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025952456 .

[ucrdem]

151. Look at what he's done and don't get hung up on a soundbyte. nt

[robinlynne]

152. kick.

[still_one]

155. and a lot of folks on DU are maintaining that Elizabeth Warren is running for President in 2016

[malokvale77]

193. Show me one.

I see wanting, I see no maintaining.

[still_one]

199. She is doing a magnificent job as a Senator exposing those democrats not working for the

People. In fact what she is doing will turn the whole party inside out, and she knows it, and knows that she is needed more in Congress which is why she doesn't even say she is considering running for president and does not plan to

[malokvale77]

206. Wonderful

How does that answer my question.

I will love her in the Senate or as Presidential candidate.

[still_one]

210. Every interview I have seen her she has said she is not running for president in 2016, which how the

Question was based. She also did not say anytime that she would consider the possibility, like ever other potential candidate, Sanders, Webb, Biden, Clinton, and Reed perhaps

[malokvale77]

222. I know that.

No one on DU "maintains" she is running.

Many here wish she would.

[still_one]

231. misunderstood your point. Thanks for clarifying it

[malokvale77]

239. No harm, no foul. (nt)

[JEB]

208. Torture is not understandable nor forgivable.

If that makes me sanctimonious, tough fucking shit.

It is a war crime that can be punishable by death.

[malokvale77]

238. "It is a war crime that can be punishable by death."

Accept when it's done out of patriotism.

You know like, for the love of the "Motherland", "Fatherland", "Country".

Or just because sick fuckers want to.

[Vattel]

253. You are correct.

Last edited Sun Dec 14, 2014, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Obama clearly did suggest that we shouldn’t be too sanctimonious about the CIA’s use of torture after 9/11; and he defends that remark partly by appeal to the claim that a lot of the people who took part in that use of torture are “real patriots.” Let’s review his words to see if there is any other reasonable interpretation. He begins the relevant part of the press conference as follows:

"With respect to the larger point of the RDI 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.”

Notice that Obama limits himself to identifying only one of the things we did wrong in response to 9/11, namely, we "tortured some folks." That is not surprising since his topic is the RDI report and its revelations about torture. He is not talking about NSA wiretapping or the various excesses of the patriot act. He is talking about torture.
Picking up from there he says, "I understand why it happened." The "it" here clearly refers to torture. That's what he was talking about. That is what he had just said we did wrong in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He continues:

"I — I think it — it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twins 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."

Having just said that he understands why "it" (torture) happened, he is now explaining why "it" (torture) happened: we were afraid, there was enormous pressure on law enforcement and national security teams to do something. He then says:

"And, you know, it — it — it — it is 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."

This is pretty unambiguous. He cautions against sanctimonious feelings in relation to what he has been talking about, namely, torture. And he justifies that caution by suggesting that a lot of the relevant law enforcement and national security people (i.e., a lot of the ones who were involved in torture) were under enormous pressure and are real patriots. There is no other way to understand him. The idea that he suddenly veered off the topic of torture and was cautioning people to not feel sanctimonious about something else is ridiculous. And it would make no sense to suppose that he was suggesting that we shouldn't feel sanctimonious about torture because a group of people who weren't involved in torture are real patriots.

[truebrit71]

294. ^^^This^^^

n/t

[Jamastiene]

304. This should be an OP.

You are right.

[cwydro]

254. Yep.

I'd like to deny it too.

But he said it.

[cwydro]

264. kicking

Recced.

[MohRokTah]

269. .

[elleng]

276. He doesn't.

You're misreading what he said.

[brush]

303. Okay, we got it, we got it.

How many days is this going to be re-posted?

[SidDithers]

313. ...

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

314. heh

Beat him to it this morning.

[Odin2005]

316. You're late.

[Orsino]

315. Considering oneself a patriot has covered a multitude of sins...

...by presumably well-intentioned people. Earnestly believing in one's own devotion to country is probably one of the easiest paths to atrocity.

Self-denial can be noble, and feel awfully patriotic, and torturers willing to travel and live in tents probably believe themselves awesome for not sitting at home eating Cheetos.

Doing what one believes is good for the country is a perfect, if circular, definition of patriotism.