Prosecute War Crimes or Lose my Vote
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have threatened to halt all business in the Senate until Congress passes their legislation allowing President Barack Obama to suppress photos showing detainee abuse.
"We're not going to do any more business in the Senate," Graham said. "Nothing's going forward until we get this right."...
Some Democrats want hearings first; but it appears as though most would rather go along with this idea of HIDING the truth from the American people and ignoring war crimes committed.
I've made my decision. I'm sure most of you don't care what I think; but unless President Obama and/or Attorney General Holder start some actual investigations into possible war crimes and start prosecuting some people before the 2012 election cycle, I will not vote for another Democrat. I will also not vote for any Republican. They will have both proven to be nothing but liars.
Yes I know there are other important issues out there but this issue is top on my list at the moment because I care about how America is seen around the world. I'll feel this way until I see somebody go to jail for their crimes in the last eight years, preferably President George W Bush and Dick Cheney; but at least those that said the torture was legal and some that used that torture capability.
There are two solutions then: vote third party, don't vote.
Not voting cannot be a solution. By removing your vote, and others who think like you, from the system then puts our fate in the hands of the blind voters (be it republican or democratic followers).
The only solution then is to vote third party. This has a problem because third party hasn't come up with reasonable candidates. And truthfully, many third parties are third party for a reason.
For my time, I would look into the Libertarian party. But that party would need a serious contender if there is to be any real change in government.
June 9, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third Party's have myriad problems...
One big problem is they appear to be "Single Issue" Party's... Whereas Democrat and Republican don't really mean anything specific... This allows them to morph into whatever they need to be at the moment. The "Green Party" can't really do that very easily...
Also, the two main Party's have a LOT of money and savvy... If they see a good idea coming from a 3rd Party, they are generally able to work it into their own platform in one way or another...
Third Party's get gobbled up.
I'm not holding my breath for any major 3rd Party to sweep in outta the blue and save the day...
The only way to affect the changes we want is to become part of it ourselves. But it's hard. It would mean devoting a lot of personal time and money endeavoring to form policy, educate our communities, get elected, etc... etc... etc... And, frankly, too many people are too far in debt and too scared to lose their job/income for fear of losing their house/car/TV/Whatever...
It's risky business... It's not easy... and until we collectively are willing to put our ass on the line then I don't expect Senators in their Ivory Towers to change their ways...
Having said all that... I'm much happier having President Obama than I would have been if we'd gotten McCain. BIGTIME!!!
June 10, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a third option: vote progressive within the Democratic Party. Support the candidate most supportive of your views, even if he or she is ridiculed endlessly by the corporate media.
June 10, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I do.
June 10, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you've given them a lot of time at least. 2012 is still three years away. Maybe something will happen.
June 9, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there's a rabbit in every pot, Obama will win in a landslide with or without your vote.
I am frustrated about it, too... but... you know it's true.
June 10, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a valid concern.
Recommended.
June 9, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you're the only one who feels like you do.
June 9, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think you are the only one to think this either.
June 9, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of Barack Obama's many admirable qualities is his ability to adapt to new information rather than try to prove his mettle by pretending that no decision he ever made needed to change (we know where that leads). The attempt to prevent publication of the photos exemplifies this trait, and I commend him. The decision was made after consultation with Bob Gates and the field commanders.
His position shouldn't be mischaracterized. He is not opposed to prosecution of those who can be convicted of Abu Ghraib abuses, although it's unrealistic to believe that Bush or Cheney would be prosecuted - particularly since they would be acquitted and the attempt would backfire disastrously with a public less interested in punishment than in preventing future abuses. In any case, the investigations are ongoing, as they should be.
On the other hand, release of photos is a separate issue. No-one has argued that they be suppressed as evidence in criminal investigations, but only that they not be released publicly - a policy concordant with thousands of less famous judicial proceedings that pass by without protest every week.
This makes eminent sense. The earlier release of photos a few years ago was vital to alert the public to abuses completely unknown to them. That served to halt the abuses (since the 2004 edicts, no further Iraqi prisoner abuses or photos have emerged). It also served to notify the world that the U.S. was willing to admit wrongdoing and correct it, rather than waiting for others to point it out to us. In contrast, the photos in question today would not reveal any new phenomenon - again, they are all old photos - but would be misrepresented by our enemies to imply we were still engaged in the same practices.
As Gates and the generals indicated to the President, our ongoing campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be jeopardized, and our military put at greater risk by the inflammatory release of photos that are old but which would be mischaracterized by our enemies as new. One could reasonably argue, I suppose, that the photos would reinforce previous efforts to curtail abuses. I would suggest, however, that the minor contribution their release would make to existing public knowledge would be dwarfed by the potential harm - even deadly harm - that would result from publication.
After weighing the pros and cons (and there are arguments on both sides), The President has made what I believe to be very much the right decision in this case. Disagreement should be respected, but excessive indignation is unwarranted.
June 9, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of malarky.
Read the court decision. It would clear up the many misconceptions you are suffering from. The law is clear and the courts have been extremely clear about this matter. Obama is offering nothing but weak, boilerplate political reasons for defying the law and you are falling for it. Respectfully, you've been had. You should better inform yourself by actually reading the court decisions. That would clear away alot of the smoke Obama is blowing up your butt and that of other gullible Americans who want to trust him. It's the oldest political trick in the world.
The ability of a politician to be a two-faced hypocrite is not a virtue. The ability of a politician to be a two-faced hypocrite in such record time on one of the central points he used over and over and over again in his campaign as a sign that he was different from the rest is anything but a virtue.
Remember that on his very first full day as President he said that open government, the rule of law and accountability would be the "hallmark" of his administration. He has made of joke of his own words and you are determined not to see it.
That statement was made, of course, before all of the corrupt, criminal, paranoid elements of the imperial national security apparatus got a hold of him. Now, novice that he is, he has become completely enthralled by their lies and is complicit in covering up their crimes. That's reprehensible conduct from a man who ought to know better.
His cyncial, corrupt decision to play politics with this matter instead of doing what he knows is right and what the courts have commanded demonstrates that his moral convictions are at the very least tenuous. He has proven now that he's just another politician and he's not telling the truth. You can choose to ignore what is obviously going on here or you can, as you seem to have done, choose to believe a fantasy about how what were lies and lame excuses and excuses for covering up criminal conduct under Bush are, when they come out of Obama's mouth, somehow well thought out products of his superior deliberative process. Bah!
June 9, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you are dead wrong with respect to investigations: there none. And so too about prosecutions: none are planned and hiding the photos is an obvious attempt to avoid having to prosecute wrongdoing particularly amongst the higher up military officers who allowed these crimes to go on.
June 9, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, it should read "there are none" in the first sentence.
June 9, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm extremely disappointed too. Unless Obama manages to turn the US into a gulag, I'll be voting for him in 2012. Because the alternative would be far worse. Do you really want to help put Sarah Palin or some other equally detestable Republican in office?
Obama still has time to mend his ways and unlike Bush or Cheney he does know better and what the right thing to do is. I'm sure he's made a political calculation that he must go down the road he's chosen to prevent something worse, but I think he's wrong. We must work to pressure him to do the right thing or give us a damn good reason why not.
June 9, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find some of the comments that followed my own earlier ones to be somewhat offensive in their intemperate and ad hominem character, but more to the point, I don't believe they addressed the substantive issues I tried to raise. In any case, I would hope at this point that interested readers will review all the comments in this thread to draw their conclusions as to what is reasonable. I'll be content with their judgments.
June 9, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments demonstrate that you are ill informed on this subject. That's not an attack and isn't meant to be. It's a simple observation. You really need to bone up on the law and the legal case you are commenting on. Only those unfamiliar with the facts can take the position you have here on this particular issue unless they are in the administration and are desperately offering a pile of unacceptable nonsense to get around the clear requirements of the law. It seems apparent that you do not understand the "substantive" arguments you raise have been reviewed thoroughly and rejected for good reason by the courts. Your "substantive" arguments do not meet the test of the law successfully. If you were familiar with the court's ruling you would see how falacious the Bush/Obama argument is and thus yours as well. You're being hoodwinked.
June 10, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oz has spoken.
June 10, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know about that, but the courts have clearly spoken---TWICE---and the President is on the wrong side of the law on this question. Furthermore, we know he knows that he is on the wrong side of the law because of his original stand and that his current position on the matter is a cynical, political ploy.
June 11, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are some around who have their "attack" meters set on a pretty high sensitivity reading. Disagreeing, even strongly, is not attacking, and it takes some pretty offensive language or repeitive brow-beating to rise to the level of being considered "attacking" in my book.
June 11, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ad hominem attack??
Where?? The way I see, he was just showing the holes in your argument...
June 10, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome aboard, Fred, now fall in line!
June 10, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the gang's all here, and they are winding up for another gang bang. You are not allowed to be reasonable here, defend the President, or be contrary. Now stop it at once.
June 10, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb is VERY angry that Obama won, so that should provide some context for his comments. It's not you, it's him. I appreciated your measured response.
June 10, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what the world needs more of...single issue voters. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
June 10, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it as a single issue - it is a symptom of other broader issues.
Think of it like a M.D. checking blood test results for white blood cell count. If it's elevated, or extremely low, it is indicative of other problems.
June 10, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
excellent point!
June 10, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then perhaps you should have said that there is more than one thing that would keep you from voting for either a Democrat or a Republican. You stated categorically the unless it looked like someone was going to jail for torture-related offenses you would not vote for either. That sounds like one issue to me.
June 10, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too use to think we should give the Obama admin time to get passed the economic crisis and war in Iraq before making him do the RIGHT THING with respects to past war crimes, however I've thought about and decided that by WAITING, we are allowing Americans (potential jurors) the chance to FORGET about what was done. We would be allowing the story to FADE.
Now, when things are fresh in people's minds is the time to set the record straight and prosecute those that committed war crimes --- not 2 years from now.
June 10, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disappointed that after I wrote what I hoped would be seen as a substantive and thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons underlying the Obama decision to oppose release of the detainee photos, the response has been simply to claim I'm wrong, with no serious effort to detail why except to instruct me to read up on the case.
I have done that. I conclude, as above, that there are legitimate arguments for and against the release of the photos, but that in my view, the case against release is the much stronger one. I hope readers will go back and read what I said, to reach their own conclusions.
I also reject any claims that Obama is trying to "defy" the law. He disagrees with a lower court decision (as do I), but will undoubtedly comply with a final ruling by the Supreme Court.
June 10, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred - First, I apologize for the manner in which you were attacked upthread. Sadly, it's become pro forma here in a lot of ways. Belligerence and rudeness have taken the place of reasoned argument in many cases.
I do believe you put forth a calmly and rationally stated position on why the Obama Administration's reversal on the release was the right decision. Thank you for your repeated attempts to be civil on this thread. It's not seen too often.
That said, I do disagree with your position. Please allow me to state why.
First, the "national security" claim being made by the Obama Administration is that the release of the additional photographs would cause damage to our continued military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The logical extension of this argument is that any release of information pertaining to military misconduct should be blocked, on the grounds that it woudl cause damage to our military efforts around the world. Surely, you would concede that this extension is untenable, both from a moral and legal standpoint.
After all, didn't we just release a handful of memoranda from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel that detailed the legal contortions our government went through to justify the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were previously classified as torture in our laws? Are we to further deduce that future military misconduct can - or should - be covered up?
Also, the Administration says that the remaining photographs are less sensational than the ones already released from Abu Ghraib.
This is, at best, a tenuous claim. After all, if the hitherto unreleased photogrphs are truly not as graphic, then it would make sense from both a legal and political view to release them.
Many of Obama's supporters liked the campaign ideal of greater transparency in detailing our military transgressions. Why continue this fight and pick at wounds among your supporters when the (allegedly) most damning material is already public?
Now, I will say that there may be more reasons than the one offered by Obama and the one which says Obama is covering up a la Bush. However, I don't think Obama's reason passes the smell test - and this invites rampant speculation as to his true reason for reversing course on this issue.
Finally, I think that Obama is not making use of his greatest trump card here: his domestic and international credibility. People are willing to give him a chance to do things his way, as long as they believe he's honestly trying to live up to his stated intentions.
He's dealt with a number of issues by making reasoned, straightforward comments that are widely perceived as honest and well researched. Examples include his response to the tax issues with some of his nominees, his public statements in support of the first stimulus package, and his numerous statements about our relations with Israel and the Muslim world.
I think he'd be best served by releasing the photos, accompanied by a speech in which he indicates his willingess to allow an independent commission to investigate the circumstances behind the photos. This would shore up his base - which is crucial for fundraising and volunteering, in addition to voting. This would also help rip off the gauzy strips covering up the wounds our national reputation has suffered around the world. Given time, and continued adherence to our stated position of not torturing captured enemies, those wounds can and will heal.
Now, legally, it would be brutally difficult to get convictions against even the authors of the "torture memos," not to mention the task of trying to convict Bush and Cheney of wrongdoing. I'm sure that Obama would much rather focus on fixing the smoldering ruins that Bushco left for him than spend time and political capital on a prosecution that could easily be misconstrued by the voting public as a persecution.
And it may well be that Obama actually wants to release the photos, but is looking to give himself political cover in his "big teent" by forcing the nine wise men (pardon me - eight wise men and one wise woman) to order his compliance with the ACLU's FOIA request. And I do agree with you that he would immediately comply with a SCOTUS order of release.
This is why groups like ACLU, HRW, etc., are needed - they can continue to force him to live up to his promises. And, lest someone scoff at the need for this, it's always necessary to stay on a politician - even one you really beleive wants to do good.
I hope you get the chance to read and respond, and again, thank you for your input. Hope to read more of your stuff.
June 10, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd - Thank you for your thoughtful and generous response, which returns this discussion to a respectful airing of divergent opinion, and permits individuals to disagree without expressing (and I hope not feeling) complete disdain for each others' views.
The discussion has grown so long, with such ample opportunity for readers to sample all viewpoints, that I'll respond only briefly. I believe we both probably agree that a case can be made for releasing the photos or for withholding their release, and so disagreements revolve around the question of balance.
Regarding my invocation of the need to protect our military and the Afghanistan/Pakistan efforts they are undertaking, you state:
"The logical extension of this argument is that any release of information pertaining to military misconduct should be blocked, on the grounds that it woudl cause damage to our military efforts around the world."
That would not be my argument. Rather, as I suggested, it's a balancing act. One must weigh potential damage to our military effort (including the death of those conducting it) against the damage to justice or to our reputation from an unwillingness to add the new photos to those already known to the public.
I'll stop there, except to say that I lack the omnniscience to argue that your view is less deserving than mine. If there are others here with a more direct pipeline to divine wisdom, they should not hesitate to state who is clearly right and who is unequivoally wrong.
June 10, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the extent that what you wrote was an analysis of the pros and cons of releasing the photos, it dealt only with political and military issues related to the possible release of the photos. The initial response by oleeb that you apparently found offensive merely pointed out (albeit in less than the most polite manner) that your analysis had ignored completely the fact that this issue arose in a legal context, and the fact that a court already has ruled that the reasons given by the government for refusing to release the photos are insufficient to outweigh the statutory duty of the government to release information to the public pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. What's wrong with pointing out that an "analysis" of a decision made in the context of a legal case ignored the legal case entirely?
June 10, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The excuses offered to the Federal District Court and to the Appeals Court (years ago now) is not a disagreement with a lower court for one thing.
Obama had publicly stated that the photos would be released because it was (and remains) "hopeless" to fight the court's decision. Shortly thereafter Obama then disingenuously trotted out the ruse that he had consulted with the Generals (as though he hadn't done so previously)and now suddenly this "new" argument that the safety of the troops would be jeapordized had come to light.
If you have, in fact, read the court's decision you would see that not one whit of this argument is new. The District Court went way beyond it's obligation to hear the objections of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff prior to rejecting the very argument you claim Obama has now weighed and found merits what his administration characterized as a "hopeless" appeal. This could not be a more transparent political manuever. But many, such as yourself, continue ignoring the obvious and insisting there is some actual merit to these arguments for suppressing evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the US Military and the civilian command as well all the way up to the Sec. of Defense and President. It is extraordinary that so many will go to such lengths to construct excuses for this sort of thing. One would think that the desire for honesty in our public officials would trump the level of denial so many seem so willing to go to on this.
Do you really think the two biggest slime balls in the US Senate would be attempting to pass a law specifically gutting the Freedom of Information Act in order to suppress these photos if they thought their arguments had any legal merit whatsoever? Well, in case you're wondering they have made clear in their statements that they are certain that the government appeal will lose and that is why they are working so hard to obtain a mechanism that allows the government to hide the evidence of these crimes.
What was specious under Bush is just as specious under Obama. It isn't who says it that matters it is what they have to say. Bush and Obama are as one on this issue and they are both dead wrong.
Here is a short excerpt and a telling one with respect to your and the Bush/Obama "substantive" arguments for suppressing evidence of wrongdoing by our military. This paragraph alone effectively negates all your claims but the decision knocks each one off in greater detail. Pay special attention to the court's noting of the importance of releasing this evidence in order to investigate the actions of higher ups and not just the grunts. This is a key reason why Bush/Obama wants the evidence suppressed. They do not want to have to initiate war crimes investigations and they want to let the criminals get away scot free because of the importance of "looking forward".
"The interest at stake arises from pictures of flagrantly improper conduct by American soldiers---forcing prisoners under their charge to pose in a manner that compromised their humanity and dignity. As I stated at the time of the original argument, and as I reiterated previously in this decision, the pictures are the best evidence of what happened, better than words, which might fail to describe, or summaries, which might err in their attempt to generalize and abbreviate. Publication of the photographs is central to the purpose of FOIA because they initiate debate, not only about the improper and unlawful conduct of American soldiers, "rogue" soldiers, as they have been characterized, but also about other important questions as well---for example, the command structure that failed to exercise discipline over the troops, and the person in that command structure whose failures in exercising supervision may make them culpable along with the soldier who were court-martialed for perpetrating the wrongs; the poor training that did not create patterns of proper behavior and that failed to reach or distinguish between conduct that was proper and improper; the regulations and orders that governed the conduct of military forces engaged in guarding prisoners; the treatment of prisoners in other areas and place of detention; and other related questions."
June 10, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So lemme get this straight: you want to put the party that allowed torture back in power just because Obama didnt follow "your widdle timetable"? Nose say goodbye to face..
The Republicans love that fact that we're distracted by this torture issue because it gives them an unchallenged opportunity to hammer away at healthcare. I don't know if you've noticed but there's a full right wing media assault on healthcare going on right now and all the left is doing is screaming "torture"! We're guarding the flank while they attack the rear. Priorities are called priorities for a reason. If we lose the healthcare war this time around, we lose everything.
June 10, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are being successfully duped if you buy the line that Obama and Congress are hard at work trying to reform the health care system. They are instead busily trying to protect the interests of Big Pharma and the Insurance industry, and cynically refer to it as "health care reform." Indeed, I tend to think we would be better off to do nothing now and defer health care reform until we get a public advocate involved rather than let these pols, who are owned by the present health care industry (Dems & Repubs), work their magic.
The have doubled down on this cynical effort by using this as a reason why they can't be "distracted" by the torture issue; that they do not have the "political capital" sufficient to perform their primary duty of protecting and preserving our Constitution. Their argument that they might perhaps work in defense of human rights, but ONLY at the "unacceptable" expense of losing opportunity to give big pharma what it wants bears little currency with me.
I do agree with your insistence on priorities, but only as established by Benjamin Franklin when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
June 10, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I usually agree with you on this board, SJ. On this one, though, I must respectfully disagree.
The problem I have with this is that, in my view, there is a very valid concern about the time Congress has to do things. I'll enumerate these below.
There are only so many days and hours that Congress is in session. And there are many big-ticket items in front of them.
It would be "merely" difficult to do half of what the Obama Administration wants to do by year's end. Trying to do *all* of it - energy initiatives, health care reform, job creation, budget control, military funding/reform, and more - is a massive undertaking. And the "smaller" items - environmental reform, educational reform, transportation investment, infrastructure rebuilding, a probable second stimulus, etc. - aren't going to wait, either.
Add to this, the fact that the voting coalition on these issues will change on a vote-by-vote basis. That's why we see so many attempts to lock up votes before ever bringing a measure to the floor - and those attempts take a LOT of time, cajoling and glad-handing.
On top of that, consider that at one-third of Congress will be busy trying to get re-elected, starting late this year. That makes calling votes, getting quorums and the like more difficult - and offers more chance for parliamentary stonewalling by the minority party.
It's a frighteningly complicated thing to get 435 Congressmen and 99 (hopefully, soon 100) Senators to do what needs to be done. That, of course, is by design.
What all of this means, to my view at least, is that Obama and his Congress have time to get a lot of things done - but not much. And, though I like Ben Franklin very much, I don't think he could have conceived of the mountains this Administration has to climb.
I think the torture problem can be delayed. Eventually, this Administration must deal with it, of course. But I happen to agree that investigating the past should not have the same priority as fixing the present and attempting to ensure the future.
June 10, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Boyd, I guess this is where I have to agree to disagree with you. I appreciate your response, but find no reason within it to change my perspective.
First of all, I have little confidence that the Dems are all about legislating in my favor, especially on health care reform. I just received a telemarketing call from the Dem Party. I told them "Get serious about the single payer option, and I might continue contributing. Otherwise, the health care industry has far more money than I ever will, so you can get your money from them if cash contributions are to be determinative of what legislation we get." From everything I've seen thus far, we'd be better off if Obama and Co. simply ignored health care reform until someone came along who was SERIOUS about working for the voter.
I would also be inclined to agree with your sense that the torture investigations and defense of human rights was simply being deferred. The truth, however, is that Obama instills little confidence that he is interested in doing much of anything that might diminish the hard won gains Cheney made in strengthening the Executive Presidency. Obama has made "transparency" into some kind of a cruel joke. He hasn't been so good on most other issues upon which he was elected either. Frankly, I get little sense that he would like anything better than to just see the torture issue simply go away. Frankly, I'm beginning to fear that for all his charisma and speaking skills and all, Obama is in the end simply too cute by half to successfully turn the corner away from the Bush years as is so sorely needed. Instead, he shows a tendency to allow Bush/Cheney's Constitutional transgressions to be established as precedent. That should scare the bejeeberz outta' anyone who ever considered Liberty as our birthright, regardles of how much sausage gets made in Washington in the meantime.
June 10, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, well. We can't agree on everything, I suppose. :-)
I would just add a response to this quote.
My recollection of the campaign is that Obama promised to introduce a public option to compete with existing private health insurance. That is exactly what appears to be emerging.
I respectfully submit that this is an area where Obama *is* actually delivering on a campaign promise, exactly as he laid it out. And, if you are unhappy with the fact that single payer doesn't appear to be part of that promise, then I can only conclude that you were equally unhappy during the campaign. That, of course, would be at odds with your excellent posting history here.
June 10, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope! Another apparent let down...
Witness:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ased-today.php
Quote:
The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will (officially) release a draft of its health reform legislation later this afternoon--four days after a version of it leaked on Friday.
According to Politico, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)--a senior member of that committee standing in for chairman Ted Kennedy--said the bill would be unveiled later today, stripped for now of its most controversial provisions, including the employer mandate and the public health insurance option.
We'll try to get more details for you (including an explanation for why those details will be missing) later today. Soon after the HELP bill is unveiled, the Senate Finance Committee will release its legislation, and the two will later be merged. More on the politics of that here.
June 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
A sad, but true, lesson I've learned: Go read the entire source before assuming TPM's clipping and analysis is full and accurate.
From the POLITICO article in question:
The details aren't in the bill, but read the bold area in this quote. Obviously, the outlines of all of those reforms are in the bill. The question, therefore, appears to be what numbers and percentages get inserted. That doesn't appear to me to be unreasonable.
Plus, check out this quoted reaction from SEIU's president, in the same article:
When you read the article in context, it doesn't AT ALL say the public option is off the table. In fact, it looks as though Democrats, unlike '94, are getting their act together - this time, to keep the public option in this bill.
June 10, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly hope so...
...but isn't Dodd saying that (FOR NOW) that provision is gone?
Also... should there actually be an "option", I hope against hope that it's NOT modeled after the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug program where private, for profit, insurance companies are paid by the patient a monthly premium... AND they are subsidized on the back end by tax payer dollars... This is a bad model, IMHO.
June 10, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Dodd said that at all. And I think the article, as I quoted it, makes it clear that the public option is very much IN the HELP draft. The numbers are missing, but the language is clearly there, according to POLITICO. Dodd's explanation for the missing numbers is reasonable to me, especially given that the Senate is more of a "boys' club" type of place.
I promise, I'll be at the head of the line for my torch and pitchfork if any final Dem version of this bill excludes a strong public option.
June 10, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your insights.
June 10, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Boyd! But my support for Obama in the election was certainly never predicated on his health care reform plan. I sensed then that the tug of money from K Street was already shaping his proposal, and I had little faith that Obama would overcome that. Nothing I've seen since has changed that.
But he has been less than honorable in his actual words versus deeds department to a disturbing degree. There was indeed much made about transparency in Obama's campaign. His alignment with Lindsey "Cracker" Graham and "Weeping Joe" Lieberman on the release of the photos is thus all the more insulting as a result.
There was also a firm promise to rid ourselves of the DADT abomination as a priority. Inasmuch as that was really low hanging fruit, it is inexcusable that good military personnel have now lost their careers because they had sufficient faith in Obama to declare themselves as gay, only to find that Obama was not there to support them as promised.
I could go on with many other examples. But perhaps most disturbing of all is Obama's tendency to embrace Cheney's extreme views on Executive Privilege. He certainly provided no hint at such fascist tendencies as a candidate, but instead certainly implied that we could expect to have the rule of law returned to status quo ante. His failures here are both disappointing AND disgusting.
June 10, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, SJ, we aren't going to have much agreement on health care, then. I happen to think that the public option is exactly what's going to be passed into law by year's end. It hasn't been back-burnered, it hasn't been dropped. I don't see how that could possibly align with the interests of the health care lobby.
As for aligning with Lieberman and Graham...I'm sorry, but of all the ways one might characterize his reversal on releasing the additional photos, I can't imagine you seriously believe that wanting to be aligned with those two Senators possibly had any real influence on his decision.
I understand that you disagree with it (and, as I showed in another response on this thread, I do too). But I think it does our position a disservice to imply that Obama is somehow in cahoots with those two. It's more rational, I think, to criticize the decision itself rather than who has what side of it.
As for DADT/DOMA/etc., I don't think the Administration has abandoned the campaign promise. I do think, though, that said fruit isn't quite as low as you might think - and I think there are political concerns that are going to relegate some things (like repealing DADT) to 2010 or later. It's worth noting that most anything not directly tied to the economy is probably on hold until at least the health care fight is over.
Finally, I'd have to say that, if Obama really embraced Cheney's views, he wouldn't have even releaed the OLC torture memos. And, if you look at the people Obama has installed or is looking to install at the DOJ (especially Dawn Johnsen), these folks hold documented views on this subject that favor what you (and I, I believe) are looking for, and that means we're eventually going to get accountability. But it takes time, and there are other considerations at play.
Personally, I think that any deep investigation into Bushco has to wait until the major initiatives are over. And there's a good chance that in-depth investigations might not start until 2013 - if Obama wins a second term.
I know that's not what you think I should be saying. But, again, the economy pushes everything else to the back burner. Most of Obama's capital has to be invested in economic recovery.
No matter how many torture investigations he holds, or how many stands he takes on gay rights, the two-state solution, healthy eating, or anything else, the 2010 mideterms and the 2012 elections will largely be about the economy and whether he's made any progress on improving it.
June 10, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're a bit quick to ascribe Obama's entire motivation to protecting Big Pharma and the Insurers. I know he's in power now, and the Left has to be critical of whoever is in power, but hold your fire just a bit...
This doesn't sound like a total handout to big business, does it?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gap9wCaolRYguYQesA2i2Yr98yLgD98NSDLG0
June 10, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, sometimes standing for a principle means more than any PARTY!
June 10, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You know, sometimes standing for a principle means more than any PARTY!"
The reason that you even need a 'party' to stand up for an issue is the same reason that people are so divided. The uniting of people seen in the 60s didn't need a party, only a cause.
The internet has a disadvantage because after you fire someone up about your principle they just go and either blindly respond or go watch some tv which validates them.
June 10, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What gives you reason to BELIEVE that Obama will finally comply to the ruling? So far he seems to be siding with everything Bush/Cheney did --except to claim he won't allow torture. Can I trust him with THOSE statments? Not sure -- haven't seen anything that tells me he MEANS what he says.
June 10, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know... These things do take time to be done properly... I think Obama would be risking a second term bigtime if he pursued this now... However, should he get re-elected he'd have a great opportunity to do the right thing in his second term...
I dunno... just throwin' stuff out there.
June 10, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring the possible crimes during your first term then going after them in your second would be considered POLITICAL.
Would you rather the chief of police go after a criminal 4 years from now after he gets reelected or now? Geez!
June 10, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like it. I wish they'd have gotten on this yesterday with vigor!!
I am indeed saying there's a political element to all of this. I think there'd be a giant shit-storm created if/when these kinds of charges are made... and I think that would jeopardize a re-election... and a loss in the next general election would doom any chance of seeing justice through...
June 10, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as the Attorney General has a strong case that proves somebody did something wrong -- the GOP would be hurt even more than they already are if they denied JUSTICE be served --- especially after harping about NOBODY being above the LAW during the Clinton impeachment -- and that was about lying to a court about having SEX!!!
I dare them to try and fight a war crime.
I've giving Obama time for his health bill to pass this year, then if nothing is done after that -- he's all politics and not the TRUE patriot and guardian of the Constitution that I thought he was.
June 10, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prepare to be disillusioned.
A man rises to the top of one of the most notoriously corrupt political systems in the country (Chicago) and you're surprised he plays politics?
Seriously?
June 10, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lckyma, every politician is political and does things he/she normally would not do to get office --- but this man was a constitutional professor and the man SWORE to be transparent in his admin.
It's time he started.
June 10, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please. How do bills get passed? By Congress. Who authorizes spending? Congress. Remember who refused to give the President the funds to close down Gitmo? Congress. Turn your focus on the guys who have to vote on these things that will make you happy. Study up on how the government works. Obama is not a dictator or a prime minister. He is one branch of government, out of three.
June 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What she said.
June 10, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then KateO, Pres Obama should have STAYED out of the conversation. Instead he says he's going to release photos, then decides not to. He says his government will be transparent then he says NO to prosecuting those that DID the torturing.
Obama can direct/ask the AG to start up a independent prosecuter -- he won't do it.
June 10, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Details, details Coonsey! Who cares about that stuff. Just don't criticize our hero even when he's wrong and deserves the criticism.
June 10, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing you just said is true, or makes any sense at all.
June 10, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this makes you feel better, coonsey.
June 10, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Facing Difficulties FDRdog isn't enough -- I want them to be punished for their crimes. Besides, it's making us look even worse in the world when it's the U.N. that has to call us up on our crimes instead of standing up to them ourselves.
When I see RESULTS I'll be happy.
June 10, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. We can close gitmo, for instance, but closing a prison does not make amends for what went on in the prison. The closing become a futile gesture without dealing out consequences for the evil that took place there.
June 10, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink