The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Just wait until the phenomenon of widespread "government doctors". Especially when we really start needing to scrape the bottom of the barrel of medical schools. It's much easier to rip off the government than a private company.

We already have that with Medicare to an extent which covers far more people on a public plan than Obama is proposing. It's unfortunately part of the system when government hires any private contractor to do work for them. All we can do is hope for better enforcement and stricter penalties for those who abuse the system.

And be careful, MBBF is going to call you out for generalizing all doctors as crooks who will rob the government.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Virtually every study has shown that a doctor will schedule more tests if they receive financial incentive for doing so (referral fee or own the machine). This is basic economics, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Virtually all studies on what doctors do for insured and uninsured patients have shown that insured patients get more tests and time with doctors. Again, financial incentive.

Do you have some statistics to dispute this or not?

But this is a 'No Shit, Sherlock' kind of statement. Of course the insured are going to get more tests and often better treatment. The resources are available to make that happen. Of course the people who are uninsured are going to get less tests and worse treatment. In many cases, the government won't pay enough reimbursement money to cover anything more than a bare bones checkup/treatment for an uninsured person.

In many cases, especially in family practices, the doctor treat the government covered patients at cost or in some cases at a small loss. The only way they can make any money is due to private companies that can actually pay for the treatments and allow the doctors to make a profit.

In regards to the video you posted, some big time assumptions that simply don't hold water by this 'expert' in the video who 'puts aside politics'. If you have to state that, you really aren't putting it aside.

1. His life expectancy graph doesn't take into account the explosion in obesity that is the main reason in the slowdown of life expectancy. It has little to do with health care not doing its job in relation to dollars spent, as he falsely implies.

2. His assumptions regarding treatment is a VERY weak correlation. Also, the 'high spending' regions that he cites are the same places where obesity is at its highest. You'd be shocked at how many of the cheaper treatments are often not available for obese patients, necessatating the use of the more expensive versions of tests to get accurate results. He also uses very generalized statements to describe the situation that really don't encompass the true issues behind the costs.

People are just too f'n fat in America. That's the major issue. We're having to spend an increasing amount of money on people.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

As I said, the military really isn't about pay. It's either something you want to do or something you don't. Pay and benefits greatly increased under Bush and retention went down even in the areas that weren't really affected by the war.

Curtailing contracting in certain sectors I can agree to. Eliminating it would be idiotic as there are job fields that rely heavily on these contractors and a good number of them are unable to serve either because they're too old, disabled, or a number other reasons.

As for you and your position, I don't know exactly what it is you do, but generally contractors offer experience and stability to a job position that a military person can't match. Contractors can stay in a position until they retire while the average military person probably stays at a particular job for less than 2 years before ETSing, PCSing, being moved, ect.

I do think it's a bit about pay. The military offers a stable job and opportunity for many who otherwise wouldn't have it. It offers the chance for certain people to attend school, support their family, and get out of whatever bad situation they may be in. It's why military recruitment is so high in poverty stricken communities.

That's not to say all are in it for the money as I'd wager that many aren't. But I do think it's seen as a great opportunity by some.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But this is a 'No Shit, Sherlock' kind of statement. Of course the insured are going to get more tests and often better treatment. The resources are available to make that happen. Of course the people who are uninsured are going to get less tests and worse treatment. In many cases, the government won't pay enough reimbursement money to cover anything more than a bare bones checkup/treatment for an uninsured person.

In many cases, especially in family practices, the doctor treat the government covered patients at cost or in some cases at a small loss. The only way they can make any money is due to private companies that can actually pay for the treatments and allow the doctors to make a profit.

You are the one that said my statement was bullshit. Now you are saying "No Shit, Sherlock". Make up your mind.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In regards to the video you posted, some big time assumptions that simply don't hold water by this 'expert' in the video who 'puts aside politics'. If you have to state that, you really aren't putting it aside.

1. His life expectancy graph doesn't take into account the explosion in obesity that is the main reason in the slowdown of life expectancy. It has little to do with health care not doing its job in relation to dollars spent, as he falsely implies.

2. His assumptions regarding treatment is a VERY weak correlation. Also, the 'high spending' regions that he cites are the same places where obesity is at its highest. You'd be shocked at how many of the cheaper treatments are often not available for obese patients, necessatating the use of the more expensive versions of tests to get accurate results. He also uses very generalized statements to describe the situation that really don't encompass the true issues behind the costs.

People are just too f'n fat in America. That's the major issue. We're having to spend an increasing amount of money on people.

I didn't post a video.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Curtailing contracting in certain sectors I can agree to. Eliminating it would be idiotic as there are job fields that rely heavily on these contractors and a good number of them are unable to serve either because they're too old, disabled, or a number other reasons.

Agreed. You'll never eliminate it completely, but it's being used far too often right now.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But this is a 'No Shit, Sherlock' kind of statement. Of course the insured are going to get more tests and often better treatment. The resources are available to make that happen. Of course the people who are uninsured are going to get less tests and worse treatment. In many cases, the government won't pay enough reimbursement money to cover anything more than a bare bones checkup/treatment for an uninsured person.

Or rather more unnecessary tests. The system is created to encourage more and more testing when it isn't needed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess I grew up thinking doctors were holier than thou. I learned that many (not all) are no better than used car salesman

Hey, whaddya know, one of those infrequent times when we're pretty much in general agreement on something.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But this is a 'No Shit, Sherlock' kind of statement. Of course the insured are going to get more tests and often better treatment. The resources are available to make that happen. Of course the people who are uninsured are going to get less tests and worse treatment. In many cases, the government won't pay enough reimbursement money to cover anything more than a bare bones checkup/treatment for an uninsured person.

In many cases, especially in family practices, the doctor treat the government covered patients at cost or in some cases at a small loss. The only way they can make any money is due to private companies that can actually pay for the treatments and allow the doctors to make a profit.

In regards to the video you posted, some big time assumptions that simply don't hold water by this 'expert' in the video who 'puts aside politics'. If you have to state that, you really aren't putting it aside.

1. His life expectancy graph doesn't take into account the explosion in obesity that is the main reason in the slowdown of life expectancy. It has little to do with health care not doing its job in relation to dollars spent, as he falsely implies.

2. His assumptions regarding treatment is a VERY weak correlation. Also, the 'high spending' regions that he cites are the same places where obesity is at its highest. You'd be shocked at how many of the cheaper treatments are often not available for obese patients, necessatating the use of the more expensive versions of tests to get accurate results. He also uses very generalized statements to describe the situation that really don't encompass the true issues behind the costs.

People are just too f'n fat in America. That's the major issue. We're having to spend an increasing amount of money on people.

I just wanted to point out that since you confirmed that when you throw single quotes out around something, you think it's BS that you did indeed think the people cancelling town halls in fear were full of shit. You ARE Ridiculous and ought to admit, for once, when youre wrong.

You cant. You wont.

You are indeed an idealogue who spins like a dreidel and even when shown to be wrong by the party you support (on that particular faux-rage of the day) or their supporters which can align with you, you continually push on to the next spin.

You were wrong. I told you you might be. You threw down the "Strawman" card. Then had people show up at Town Halls with Semi-automatic weapons and not once said, "You know, perhaps I was wrong to insinuate that those that cancelled were pussies after all."

You know no bounds in your spin and cannot even admit to being wrong on the slightest thing for fear it undermines your rhetoric when you trample on your own credibility repeatedly.

I know I know some are going to say, "Flasch, leave it alone blah blah blah...youre as batshit as he is" but that shit needs to be exposed because it infects everything he says, and the spin he tries to lay out as being his opinion/fact (which are interchangeable apparently).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Or rather more unnecessary tests. The system is created to encourage more and more testing when it isn't needed.

It wasn't created to encourage that. That's simply not true. There are some that use it for that purpose, but most doctors do not. I know it's fun to villanize the doctors, but you point out where the real reforms should be made. If we use the current opportunity properly, the first step would be to reduce many of these loopholes. If we do that, then maybe we'd actually have some money to accomplish some form of coverage for the people who don't currently have coverage. At a minimum, the premiums would be reduced to a more manageable level.

[Flasch186]

no stats to counter the above ones. nice.

[ISiddiqui]

Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama - NYTimes.com

August 25, 2009

Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama

By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to ensure they are not tortured, administration officials said on Monday.

The administration officials, who announced the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.

“The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent over overseas,” said one administration official, adding that no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive interrogations.

But human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying it would permit the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture and that promises of humane treatment, called “diplomatic assurances,” were no protection against abuse.

“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.

She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.

The Obama task force proposed improved monitoring of treatment of prisoners sent to other countries, but Ms. Singh said the usual method of such monitoring — visits from American or allied consular officials — had also been ineffective. A Canadian consular official visited Mr. Arar several times, but the prisoner was too frightened to tell him about the torture, according to a Canadian investigation of the case.

The new transfer policy was one of a series of recommendations proposed by a working group set up in January to study changes in rendition and interrogation policies under an executive order signed by President Obama.

In addition, the Obama administration is setting up a new administrative interrogation unit, to be housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which will oversee the interrogations of top terror suspects using largely non-coercive techniques approved by the administration earlier this year.

The creation of the new unit will formally end the Central Intelligence Agency’s primary role in questioning high level detainees after years in which some lawmakers and human rights groups complained of abusive treatment.

Bill Burton, the deputy White House spokesman who is with the vacationing president in Oak Bluffs, Mass., said that creation of the unit does not mean the C.I.A. is out of the interrogation business. The new unit will include “all these different elements under one group,” he said at the briefing, and would work out of F.B.I. headquarters in Washington.

The announcement of the new unit came as the administration released a long withheld C.I.A. Inspector General’s report written in 2004 that is said to be a scathing critique of how the C.I.A. carried out interrogations of terror suspects.

The new unit, to be called the High Value Interrogation Group, will be comprised of analysts, linguists and other personnel from the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies who will contribute expertise to interrogations. The group will operate under policies set by the National Security Council.

The officials said all interrogations will comply with guidelines contained in the Army Field Manual, which outlaws the use of physical force. The new interrogation group will study interrogation methods, however, and may add additional non-coercive methods in the future, the officials said.

WTF?!

So what is the reason to engage in rendition if you are not attempting to skate around US law? Why send them elsewhere then? Seriously... its like they aren't even trying in coming up with BS reasons.

[molson]

I don't remember what Obama said about this while he was campaigning, but I would bet that his supporters would have thought he wouldn't have continued that practice.

[ISiddiqui]

Fuck, I don't even thinking they would have thought McCain would have continued it!

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So what is the reason to engage in rendition if you are not attempting to skate around US law? Why send them elsewhere then?

Because they want to keep their options open to skate around US law.

[Flasch186]

I dont know all the details but at first blush I think that sucks.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah - that sucks

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Unfortunately, the flip-flop on FISA sorta got liberals ready for something like this. Aside from a brave few, the right-wing consensus on national security seems to infect whoever gets into any sort of power.

This type of stuff has proven (in my mind anyway) my suspiscions that the general public really has no idea "what" the President is informed of on a daily basis.

I know a lot of people think Bush was a typical chickenhawk Republican...but IMHO...he was a guy that wanted to help make the US richer and saw a lot of shit come across his desk that changed his priorities.

I suspected we would see the same thing from Obama...a smart guy that wanted to help the less fortunate...and is starting to see things that convince him that he can't help anybody until he deals with the threats around the world.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

the general public really has no idea "what" the President is informed of on a daily basis.

Ding ding ding.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The national security state continues unabated.

Ayup

SI

[flere-imsaho]

I remain unconvinced that we need rendition.

[Flasch186]

FWIW Pawlenty is on CNBC saying that Obama is supposed to be the great Uniter yet it looks like now he'll have to force the Health Care program 'down our throats'. I find this highly hypocritical when the GOP has been adamantly opposed to compromise. Theyre going to try to play both sides of the coin.

At the same time 'Leader Army' (Dick) is saying that States cant handle and have bungled programs that we've seen so far. So now it's not able to be done on the state level either. He also has wiped out the Co-op as an option as well. He says it's not about the focus on the health safety and security of the American People but about the Focus of Governmental Power (again blending the two arguments together). Compromise is not in the cards...probably never was.

-CNBC, my watching

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't remember what Obama said about this while he was campaigning, but I would bet that his supporters would have thought he wouldn't have continued that practice.

Here's what was listed on his campaign website.........

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Count...mFactSheet.pdf

"From both a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, torture is wrong. Barack Obama will end the use torture without exception. He also will eliminate the practice of extreme rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Here's what was listed on his campaign website.........

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Count...mFactSheet.pdf

i had high hopes this would happen, and honestly i think it's still his personal belief, but the reality is (and likely always was) that in the current environment, given the "momentum" behind the "national security state" (man that sounds really nazi-esque), the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the intelligence organizations and such, that it would be difficult for any president to make such a change.

i hoped Obama would have the balls to do it, but it really doesn't surprise me that he didn't.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i had high hopes this would happen, and honestly i think it's still his personal belief, but the reality is (and likely always was) that in the current environment, given the "momentum" behind the "national security state" (man that sounds really nazi-esque), the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the intelligence organizations and such, that it would be difficult for any president to make such a change.

i hoped Obama would have the balls to do it, but it really doesn't surprise me that he didn't.

Obama's problem was that he made an idealist blanket statement to pander to his base without getting a full understanding of the complexity of the system in place that handles these kinds of things. This is something that was pointed out when he made the statements. It shouldn't be surprising that he was wrong. It should be surprising that he made the statement during his campaign to garner votes rather than make a well-informed campaign promise. Or maybe that shouldn't be surprising either.

The more things 'change', the more they stay the same.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

How did we get to the point where a promise to stop using torture in interrogations is an unrealistic campaign promise?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How did we get to the point where a promise to stop using torture in interrogations is an unrealistic campaign promise?

We got to the point where we were forced into an unconventional war not of our choosing and had to figure out how and when the conventional rules of war apply to an enemy that does not subscribe to any of those rules.

I'd add that, at some level, we are still trying to figure out that balance eight years later.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How did we get to the point where a promise to stop using torture in interrogations is an unrealistic campaign promise?

No kidding. From a purely moralistic sense, it's horribly wrong and should be stopped, end of story. But for people who that isn't good enough and want a "practical" reason, there's a much larger body of evidence that torture provides bad information and shouldn't be used for that reason. I don't see how it's defensible at all.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How did we get to the point where a promise to stop using torture in interrogations is an unrealistic campaign promise?

Word. Sad and sorry state on our country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How did we get to the point where a promise to stop using torture in interrogations is an unrealistic campaign promise?

Because when dealing with an enemy or even an ally of an enemy, no option is ever realistically off the table. Some are preferable to others, but nothing should ever be categorically rejected and most especially not publicly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No kidding. From a purely moralistic sense, it's horribly wrong and should be stopped, end of story. But for people who that isn't good enough and want a "practical" reason, there's a much larger body of evidence that torture provides bad information and shouldn't be used for that reason. I don't see how it's defensible at all.

SI

That's not completely true. While there were some ugly things that came out in the report released yesterday and there is some bad information received at times, there also was information that confirmed what Cheney had been saying. There were some terror attack plots that were foiled by interrogation techniques termed as torture.

I'm not a huge fan of it personally, but they definitely did not come up empty.

[lungs]

Just to show you how far Obama has fallen, a Drudge Report poll shows that 91% of those polled don't think Obama's Presidency can be saved.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

Just to show you how far Obama has fallen, a Drudge Report poll shows that 91% of those polled don't think Obama's Presidency can be saved.

Margin of error on that poll?

[DaddyTorgo]

isn't trying to cite a drudge report poll for obama like trying to cite a dailykos poll for bush?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

isn't trying to cite a drudge report poll for obama like trying to cite a dailykos poll for bush?

Your sarcasm meter needs immediate repairs.

[DaddyTorgo]

lol aaah okay.

well...immediate repairs or just another coffee...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some more fact checks on a couple of recent claims. First, Obama got a little overexcited in his estimte on what a reduction in obesity would do for the Medicare bottom line. It would help, but not nearly as much as he claims.

PolitiFact | Obama says lower obesity rates would save Medicare $1 trillion

Senator Sanders also needs to be reeled in a bit. America pays quite a bit on insurance, but we aren't spending nearly as much in comparison to other countries as he would like you to believe. In fact, the average amount spent per capita on health care actually went down between 2007 and 2009 while other countries continued to see increases.

PolitiFact | Sanders says U.S. doubles every other country in per capita health spending

[flere-imsaho]

Before we jump to conclusions:

In what appeared to be a response to the Justice Department’s release, the C.I.A. later on Monday released previously secret agency reports from 2004 and 2005 that detailed intelligence scoops produced by the interrogation program.

One of the reports calls the program “a crucial pillar of U.S. counterterrorism efforts” and describes how interrogations helped unravel a network headed by an Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali. The other report details information elicited from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, chief planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying it “dramatically expanded our universe of knowledge on Al Qaeda’s plots.”

Those reports, which former Vice President Dick Cheney had sought to have released earlier this year, do not refer to any specific interrogation methods and do not assess their effectiveness.

This is from the NYT article on the front page about the reports.

Let's take the CIA's analysis with a grain of salt. This is the agency whose shitty intelligence cost us 5,000 dead Americans and several trillion dollars to create a quasi-theocratic Iranian client state in Iraq.

The CIA likes rendition and torture because it's a relatively easy way to procure intel, even if the intel procured has been shown to be faulty or just plain wrong. This as opposed to developing actual human intel on the ground and concentrating on picking up the right people, as opposed to, say, kids.

This is the same agency that was caught by surprise by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, had no idea India would conduct nuclear tests, failed to take Al-Qaeda seriously prior to 9/11, repeatedly lied to Congress at least since 2001 and has been known to just make shit up. At some point you have to wonder if their actions make the U.S. less safe, not more.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Senator Sanders also needs to be reeled in a bit. America pays quite a bit on insurance, but we aren't spending nearly as much in comparison to other countries as he would like you to believe. In fact, the average amount spent per capita on health care actually went down between 2007 and 2009 while other countries continued to see increases.

PolitiFact | Sanders says U.S. doubles every other country in per capita health spending

It should be noted that MBBF's statement is not an accurate representation of what is on the PolitiFact page linked. You cannot compare WHO statistics to OECD statistics accurately without knowing exactly how they are derived. They may include/exclude different things that affect the valuations. Nevertheless we can probably conclude that in the absence of two sets of numbers from the same organization they are at least open to discussion. Maybe it's comparing Red Delicious apples to Granny Smith apples.

And while it's true we aren't spending twice as much as everyone else, we are spending twice as much as either 2/3 or 1/2 (depending on if you adjust for currency value) of the other developed nations (2006 WHO numbers published in 2009 report). In 2007 OECD numbers it was twice as much as 25 of the other 30 developed nations.

There's also this little nugget that you overlooked MBBF (to be fair I overlooked it on a quick read-through too the first time):

According to the 2009 edition of WHO's World Health Statistics report, which uses figures from 2006, health care spending in the U.S. -- both public- and private-sector -- amounted to $6,719 per capita.

So the numbers that you said were 2009 were actually 2006 numbers. Healthcare spending continues to rise.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Before we jump to conclusions:

This is from the NYT article on the front page about the reports.

Let's take the CIA's analysis with a grain of salt.

I'll agree. I'm sure we'll hear more about it in the coming days. We should withhold judgement until we get further clarification on what that entails.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

There's also this little nugget that you overlooked MBBF (to be fair I overlooked it on a quick read-through too the first time):

So the numbers that you said were 2009 were actually 2006 numbers. Healthcare spending continues to rise.

Good catch. I misread that part of it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Good catch. I misread that part of it.

No worries. Not trying to play gotcha-ball or anything. Like I said, on my first read-through I missed it also. Hence why I had to go back and edit my post to add in the bit about it.

[flere-imsaho]

Having said that, Holder's investigation is also disappointing. I don't have anything to link as I'm going off of what I heard on NPR this morning, but I assume the details are on all the major websites.

Basically the investigation will be narrow and will focus on whether or not specific interrogations violated the law. And apparently no technique will be considered "against the law" if the interrogation team asked if a particular technique was OK to use in that case and was told so by HQ or by the various legal counsels (Justice or otherwise).

Let's count the problems:

1. So we're going to target just the low-level interrogators, who were clearly carrying out orders to torture with either the explicit or implicit approval of their superiors. What does this accomplish? Especially in the cases where (as noted in the report) the interrogation teams continued to torture even when they felt there was nothing else to be gained from that witness, but they had "pressure from HQ" to do so. I thought Obama said he wasn't going to go after low-level CIA folks who were doing their jobs?

2. So if someone's got a memo from John Yoo saying you can strip the skin off a detainee during an interrogation (example hypothetical), they have a get-out-of-jail-free card?

3. Among the people who think the regime of torture at the CIA was/is a problem, the number of people who think the problem was bottom-up is vanishingly small. This wasn't the result of a few rogue actors, it was clearly the result of a coordinated effort by key people in Justice, the White House and the CIA to put into place a regime of torture and find lawyerly ways to justify it. Many of the principals (Yoo, Bybee, Addington) have come out and said as much. If we have a problem with this regime, shouldn't we be looking at them?


What a bunch of ridiculous bullshit. Bill and Hillary Clinton get involved in some shady land deals in who-the-fuck-cares Arkansas and the GOP gets a special prosecutor to spend years and tens of millions of dollars to confirm that yes, Bill Clinton fucked an intern (completely unrelated to the original accusation).

A few years later the Bush White House systematically undermines many of the civil liberty tenets upon which this country was founded, potentially breaks a great many laws, and obfuscates this information including just plain lying to Congress and the American people and the best Holder can do is start an investigation to see if Random Joe CIA Torturer waterboarded Random Terrorist a little too much?

NEWSFLASH Eric & Barack: WHO THE FUCK CARES?!?! I couldn't give a shit if Joe Random Terrorist got waterboarded. And to be honest I don't really care all that much if Joe Innocent Muslim also got waterboarded. You're missing the fucking point. While each individual instance of torture is bad, surely, it's the overall interrogation program employed by the CIA on the advice of the White House and Justice that was clearly more interested in either a) retribution or b) being Jack Bauer than getting good intel. And by the way, this is the program you're going to, by and large, let them continue with the rendition program? Have none of you learned anything from the huge quantity of investigations on the efficacy of torture over the past years, the overwhelming conclusion of which has been that IT DOESN'T WORK?


I'll be honest, in my wildest dreams I would have liked Obama, on Day One, to appoint a Special Investigator to do an in-depth investigation into exactly how many laws were broken, and ethics violations made by the Bush Administration over the past 8 years with a goal of bringing a great many of the principles to court or at least in front of Congress. And I honestly wouldn't have cared if convictions were secured - it would be enough to unearth, without ambiguity, the extent to which these people felt the power of the Presidency was their personal sinecure, to do with as they wished and further to have a bunch of these people's lasting reputations sullied as much as they richly deserve.

Now, I never expected such a thing would really happen. But this? This is a slap in the face.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What a bunch of ridiculous bullshit. Bill and Hillary Clinton get involved in some shady land deals in who-the-fuck-cares Arkansas and the GOP gets a special prosecutor to spend years and tens of millions of dollars to confirm that yes, Bill Clinton fucked an intern (completely unrelated to the original accusation).

A few years later the Bush White House systematically undermines many of the civil liberty tenets upon which this country was founded, potentially breaks a great many laws, and obfuscates this information including just plain lying to Congress and the American people and the best Holder can do is start an investigation to see if Random Joe CIA Torturer waterboarded Random Terrorist a little too much?


I'll be honest, in my wildest dreams I would have liked Obama, on Day One, to appoint a Special Investigator to do an in-depth investigation into exactly how many laws were broken, and ethics violations made by the Bush Administration over the past 8 years with a goal of bringing a great many of the principles to court or at least in front of Congress. And I honestly wouldn't have cared if convictions were secured - it would be enough to unearth, without ambiguity, the extent to which these people felt the power of the Presidency was their personal sinecure, to do with as they wished and further to have a bunch of these people's lasting reputations sullied as much as they richly deserve.

Now, I never expected such a thing would really happen. But this? This is a slap in the face.

I agree with umm...everything you said here.

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah. Short of the GOP being taken over by pod people, I can't see me voting for that party for the foreseeable future. But Obama pulling pussy-ass stuff like this weak investigation is the difference between me merely voting for him in four years and me spending my time working on his behalf, donating to the campaign, etc.

Props for that post flere.

[DaddyTorgo]

pod poeple...hahaha

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I have a friend that was married to a wife who spent money like this.

Deficit, economic shrinkage worse than expected

They just finalized their divorce.

[Flasch186]

I would say that statistically divorce rates rise during recessions period.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I would say that statistically divorce rates rise during recessions period.

Are you basing that on gut instinct or actual data? I haven't researched it myself but would tend to believe the opposite to be true.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I would say that statistically divorce rates rise during recessions period.

I think that I heard a while back the opposite was true actually. With people making less money or even out of jobs who has the money for a lawyer and to be paying bills on two households (let alone one)?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Having said that, Holder's investigation is also disappointing. I don't have anything to link as I'm going off of what I heard on NPR this morning, but I assume the details are on all the major websites.

A few years later the Bush White House systematically undermines many of the civil liberty tenets upon which this country was founded, potentially breaks a great many laws, and obfuscates this information including just plain lying to Congress and the American people and the best Holder can do is start an investigation to see if Random Joe CIA Torturer waterboarded Random Terrorist a little too much?

NEWSFLASH Eric & Barack: WHO THE FUCK CARES?!?!

I'll be honest, in my wildest dreams I would have liked Obama, on Day One, to appoint a Special Investigator to do an in-depth investigation into exactly how many laws were broken, and ethics violations made by the Bush Administration

Just highlighting a few of your points to ask the question....why do you think Obama & Holder would do this? Yes...they might be pussies...but maybe it's a bit more complex.

Do you think it unreasonable that they might be helping to cover for a systemic complicitness shared by high ranking Dems during this same time period? Or perhaps they have reluctance based on what they feel they need to do in order to keep the US safe. I know this sounds like rhetoric...but maybe...just maybe...the President actually knows what he's doing. And maybe...that goes for the last one.

Now, I never expected such a thing would really happen. But this? This is a slap in the face.

I don't want to come off as gloating at your dissappointment at all...but this does not surprise me one bit. When faced with the decision of...

(a) Enforcing ideals at the risk (as informed by career intelligence officials) of not doing "everything allowable" could ...completely end my prospects at a 2nd term if a plot were to happen here on my watch... have significantly negative historical ramifications...send the American public into a bloody vengeance not ever seen...prove Repubs right about my foreign policy...take your pick.

or

(b) I don't care what these career intelligence wackos think...we are Americans and WE don't do that regardless of the percieved risk to these knuckleheads...

I think he made the same decision every one of his predecessors in the last ~30 years would have made (ironically, since Carter...the guy he was compared to by Repubs).

Now, I'm not going to debate the merits of torture as I do not believe it "typically" gathers worthwhile information. I do not personally think it should be our policy per se, but also not off the table completely if for no other reason...deterrance.

What I would submit is that once again...my distrust in politicians and government's "official" story seems to be once again well deserved.

I mean...there has to be a better reason than the "here and now BS" reasons Dems and Repub Presidents alike all tend to take similar foreign policy measures regardless of what they say when they are not in office.