Start at about 1:45...
"..has ended one war and is trying to end another..." Wow. My governor is a full-on propagandist. In Patrick land, "tripling our forces in" equals "trying to end", to say nothing of the two wars Obama started. Plus, look at Patrick just turtle-up when pressed at all. Embarrassing.
What a trite and meaningless interview. Watch at the 3:05 mark when Maher just says "wow." My reaction exactly. Patrick is just a talking points spokesperson. So sad. Predictable, but sad.
I thought the strategy of just saying stuff even when you know it's not true was roundly rejected by the "reality-based community" when Bush wore it out. When did that come back to life, and where are the "reality-based" folks now to point it out?
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Nothing to See Here?
The new Gitmo revelations are shocking, horrific and just disturbing in a rather profound way. If you really stop and think about the horror we inflicted on some people because we thought they were useful, or couldn't muster the political will to let them go, it gets literally sickening.
This should be a time for serious shame and introspection as a nation. We should be taking a collective moment to consider what our "values" really are, and how it is we've strayed so far. We should wonder what we will tell the youngest generation of Americans when they ask us twenty years from now how America was ever capable of such a thing.
It's so incredibly sad. And, it's almost just as sad to know we're not going to stop and think of such things; to know that there's not going to be much solemnity or outrage or even discussion over this.
The fact that Presidents from each party are now forever linked to the blight that is Gitmo should allow us to come clean about what we've done and what we've become. Instead, that fact will be the central reason we delude ourselves into covering it all up.
This should be a time for serious shame and introspection as a nation. We should be taking a collective moment to consider what our "values" really are, and how it is we've strayed so far. We should wonder what we will tell the youngest generation of Americans when they ask us twenty years from now how America was ever capable of such a thing.
It's so incredibly sad. And, it's almost just as sad to know we're not going to stop and think of such things; to know that there's not going to be much solemnity or outrage or even discussion over this.
The fact that Presidents from each party are now forever linked to the blight that is Gitmo should allow us to come clean about what we've done and what we've become. Instead, that fact will be the central reason we delude ourselves into covering it all up.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Rule of Law = Doing What's Popular (Duh!)
This article is so disappointing on a few different levels.
First, what it reflects (assuming it is accurate), is a mix of incompetence, and weakness on serious issues of principle and campaign promises on the part of the Obama Administration and Obama himself. But given all that, the tone of the article reads somewhat sympathetically. It highlights all the political difficulties and traps inherent in any War on Terror issue, and almost seems to paint this issue as one where Obama could've been more organized, sure, but man it was tough, and public opinion polls were all against him, then one congressman wrote one angry letter, and then there was that trial where the guy got convicted, so that was (somehow) bad news...
Indeed, the article fails to seize on a rather critical point and just reports it very matter-of-factly:
"Could be prosecuted" is really just a funny way to say "there's significant evidence of their guilt." We use another funny phrase to describe people we can't say that about: Not Guilty.
In other words, the President was apparently "peeved" that sometimes you think people are guilty but can't prove it. I'm sure that's tough and all, but something he probably should've considered before signing up to be the leader of America. It's also something that Washington Post should've highlighted, that that attitude by itself, let alone all of the electoral/political/opinion poll calculations over legal questions, is completely improper.
First, what it reflects (assuming it is accurate), is a mix of incompetence, and weakness on serious issues of principle and campaign promises on the part of the Obama Administration and Obama himself. But given all that, the tone of the article reads somewhat sympathetically. It highlights all the political difficulties and traps inherent in any War on Terror issue, and almost seems to paint this issue as one where Obama could've been more organized, sure, but man it was tough, and public opinion polls were all against him, then one congressman wrote one angry letter, and then there was that trial where the guy got convicted, so that was (somehow) bad news...
Indeed, the article fails to seize on a rather critical point and just reports it very matter-of-factly:
The president asked Matthew G. Olsen, the Justice Department lawyer heading the task force, approximately how many Guantanamo detainees could be prosecuted, according to administration officials.
Probably fewer than 20, Olsen said.
The president seemed peeved that the number was so small, in contrast with the optimistic predictions during his election campaign that nearly all of the remaining detainees could face trial or be transferred.
"Could be prosecuted" is really just a funny way to say "there's significant evidence of their guilt." We use another funny phrase to describe people we can't say that about: Not Guilty.
In other words, the President was apparently "peeved" that sometimes you think people are guilty but can't prove it. I'm sure that's tough and all, but something he probably should've considered before signing up to be the leader of America. It's also something that Washington Post should've highlighted, that that attitude by itself, let alone all of the electoral/political/opinion poll calculations over legal questions, is completely improper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)