NOT HELPFUL. Michael Isikoff reports that was part of the president's response to calls for prosecutions of war crimes. That is very disturbing.
When I came out in support of Obama early in the primaries, I wrote Doubting Obama in response to a diary by jbou based on a column by Matt Taibi. I examined Obama's brief foray into Markos' venue and ultimately chose to support him because he passed a simple standard:
We are not seeking to canonize a saint. We are seeking to hire a chief executive we reasonably believe will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of their ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
When I heard the president considers even investigating war crimes "a distraction," I began to question what I can reasonably believe about Obama. When I reviewed Taibi's most damning charges in the context of current reports, I'm afraid he may have hit closer to the mark than I thought. That's not helpful if you want to be hopeful.
Here's what Matt Taibbi wrote:
He is running as a symbol of a new politics, a politics somehow less disgusting and full of shit than the old politics. But if it were to get out that he's not that —that all he is is the same old deal dressed up in black skin and a natty suit —then he quickly morphs into a different kind of symbol, a symbol of how an essentially bankrupt political system can seamlessly repackage itself to a fed-up marketplace by making cosmetic changes, without altering its basic nature.
It has only been a few months since Obama started cleaning out King Bush's Augean Stables. That's a Herculean task by any measure. Unlike Hercules, Obama did not promise to finish that job done in a day. In the real world these things take time. After all, King Bush, unlike King Augeas, didn't dump all that crap on us in a single day. It took eight years of concerted effort by several criminals to dig a hole that crap-filled. In the process, they left behind a mountain of evidence. Ignoring these glaring violations to the rule of law will encourage more criminal behavior in the future. That is not helpful.
It took a long time to dig ourselves in and will take a long time to to dig ourselves out. The question is which way are digging, really? Are we digging in to the problems, or trying to go around them? The criminal activity of Bush and his cronies was supported by structures put in place over the course of years. This didn't start with PNAC. It began in the Reagan administration, if not earlier. When you look at the criminal history of previous Republican administrations, one sees a pattern of progressively worse behavior. If we do not clean out this cesspool of criminal behavior and get to the bottom of this mess, we can be sure it will be repeated the next time Republicans get close to power. That is not helpful.
How the law is interpreted, how it is applied, and how it is used to justify policy are all areas of discussion where honest people of good will can reach fundamentally different conclusions. That's not the same as saying "anything goes" when it comes to the rule of law in a constitutional democracy. Defending all "legal opinions" as equally valid is as foolish as arguing all interpretations of fossil records are equally valid. Some things are simply wrong. Tou can't get around that by concocting bizarre theories. That is not helpful.
Understanding the difference between right and wrong becomes very important if you are planning future actions based on present interpretations of previous events. Making it up as you go along and pretending the past is not relevant is a surefire way to get in over your head. That is not helpful.
That is the problem Obama faces, and I'm sure he understands it better than most everyone else. I'm sure he would agree that safely navigating the ship of state through the uncharted waters of the future can only be accomplished if we plot our positions based on well-established, firmly fixed, and trusted points that are not buffeted by the tide of public opinion. We tried that experiment in the last administration; it failed spectacularly. If we don't hold people accountable for their criminal behavior, others will repeat it. That is not helpful.
The voters clearly understood that and voted for change. Big time. Obama won a convincing mandate. The GOP was stripped of its power in the congress and the senate. The electoral map was dramatically changed. One of the major reasons for this seachange in public opinion was the fact that the Bush administration consistently and persistently engaged in criminal behavior. And they encouraged others to do so as well. To borrow a phrase from Colin Powell's ignominious charade at the United Nations, these are facts not assertions.
FACT: Torture was routinely used on people in US custody.
FACT: This torture was approved by people in the White House.
FACT: The Vice President approved of this torture.
FACT: The President signed off on the torture.
FACT: Those are all war crimes.
When it comes to law, you can choose your theory, you can choose your arguments, you can choose your precedents, but you can't choose your facts. That is not helpful.
I'm looking forward to the president's speech. I hope he will give congress a demonstration of courage in the face of opposition. However, if he caves on this point and follows the lead of cowards who let themselves be bullied by an increasingly irrelevant minority, then I am afraid Matt Tiabbi's assessment of Obama is on the money. For those who were hopeful this administration marked a point in time when the United States plotted a course back towards "America," that is not helpful.
UPDATED: Unfortunately, spineless responses to prior crimes gives Cheney ammunition, like he is using right now on CSPAN. That is never helpful. The guy is seriously arguing that releasing secret information is a mistake...and pointing the finger at Obama when he says it! This is going to get worse.
As Frankie Teardrop so pointedly notes in the comments:
We can't magically have a rule of law in the future
without upholding the rule of law right now.
Now, THAT is what I call helpful!
====
UPDATE for trolls:
Some people have trouble reading. One person, who shall remain nameless, has called me out as a LIAR. I don't know if the powers that be will ban them for that, but I am going to set the record straight here because the person in question successfully hijacked the comment threads and drove folks off.
The complaint was I LIED when I originally wrote:
NOT HELPFUL. Michael Isikoff reports that was the president's response to calls for prosecutions of war crimes. That is very disturbing.
I changed it to:
NOT HELPFUL. Michael Isikoff reports that was part of [emph. added] the president's response to calls for prosecutions of war crimes. That is very disturbing.
I thought that was what had them in a tizzie. In the comments, they then accused me of something else:
You're good at that "modifying" stuff. I see now (0+ / 0-)
that you have removed, without notice, the lie that began this diary in the first place. Or rather obscured it.[emph. added]
So even the complaint I "removed the lie" wasn't sustained in the comment accusing me.
But then the charge of LYING changed again. It turns out they were mad because I didn't link to the Newsweek article by Isikoff on the White House meeting with human rights advocates and civil libertarians. So I guess they think an interview on Rachel Maddow's show doesn't count as reporting. Interesting. According to them "That's not reporting. That's talking"... wow. Looks like Maddow and Isikoff didn't get the memo.
As you can see the link was to Rachel Maddow's interview with Isikoff. For those who want to quibble with whether that is a "report" or not, I refer you to Rachel's opening:
Maddow:We begin tonight with exclusive news from an off-the-record, at times tense, White House meeting today on torture, military tribunals, and potential prosecutions of former Bush administration officials.
Starting at around 1:55 in the 9 minute segment Maddow reiterates what we are going to hear is exclusive news, and repeatedly says "we can report..." and then lists points from the meeting. Then Maddow introduced Isikoff as a reporter for MSNBC, followed by this exchange between Isikoff and Maddow starting around 2:55:
Maddow: If this is an off-the-record meeting, how do you know about it?
Isikoff: Ummm....It's called REPORTING!
Here is where I will accept the apology due me:
_______________________