Jeremy Scahill (on Bill Maher): Obama made assassination acceptable to Democrats

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

If it were "Grandpa" McCain, Democrats would be up in arms.

Great interview. Kudos to Jeremy.

[madrchsod]

1. no.....they just turn their heads in hope it will go away.

after all one does`t question the king if one wants an invitation to the grand ball

[morningfog]

2. No doubt the next repug president will be flayed on DU when they continue some

of Obama's policies.

[cui bono]

34. As was Bush when he started them. n/t

[KoKo]

3. Thanks for post...Scahill really lays things out about what's going on...

Caught a couple of interviews in International Media... but, no so much here on MSM...Glad that Bill had him on there.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

7. I think only on a show like Bill Maher can he come out that boldly...

He's on a book tour now, and I've seen him interviewed quite a bit. I had yet to hear him level that indictment on Democrats.

[kentuck]

4. Why does he have to say shit like that?

Why can't he just keep his mouth shut? Does this type of criticism really help?



































<sarcasm>

[choie]

5. That's pretty obvious here on DU

There are many who seem to think it's okay - as long as a Democratic president is for it.

[pnwmom]

6. No -- Osama Bin Laden made that acceptable to almost all Americans

for his own particular case, anyway.

But Obama didn't order for him to be assassinated -- he just didn't require troops to risk their lives by trying to take him alive.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. Scahill was not talking about Bin Laden -

he was talking about the special forces that have been assassinating people, oftentimes innocent people. He was also talking about the assasssination of American citizens. Obama is dead wrong on this. Scahill makes the case we are making far more enemies by our actions.

[babylonsister]

30. American citizens? Did he name names? nt

[cui bono]

35. Here's a name: Anwar al-Awlaki - Here's another: Samir Khan

Obama Assassinates U.S. Citizen

—By Kevin Drum
| Fri Sep. 30, 2011 8:10 AM PDT

Up until now, the Obama administration's policy of sanctioning the assassination of U.S. citizens has been more theoretical than real. Not any longer:

A missile fired from an American drone aircraft in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in this country, according to an official in Washington.

....Yemen’s official news agency, Saba, reported that the attack also killed Samir Khan, an American citizen of Pakistani origin and the editor of Inspire, Al Qaeda’s English-language Internet magazine. Mr. Khan proclaimed in the magazine last year that he was “proud to be a traitor to America.”

Is this the first targeted assassination of a U.S. citizen as part of the war on terror? Probably. The Bush administration killed Buffalo-born Kamal Derwish in 2002, but at least for public consumption, quickly claimed that they had been targeting someone else and Derwish was simply collateral damage. You can take that for what it's worth, but in any case, even that fig leaf is gone now: no one's even bothering to pretend that al-Awlaki's killing was anything other than deliberately planned and executed.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/obama-assassinates-us-citizen

Wednesday, Apr 7, 2010 04:08 AM PDT
Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen
N.Y. Times, Washington Post both report that the president has taken a step beyond where even George Bush would go
http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: April 6, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp&_r=0

[sabrina 1]

48. We can name some children from Pakistan, but then they are not American citizens. So I guess

they don't count.

I do recall Democrats in general not distinguishing between brown children, adults or anyone else being assassinated and American citizens. We used to condemn extra-judicial killing. We used to have a system of justice in this country, but I guess now that we don't anymore, it's all okay and we should all get on board. I'm trying, but it just doesn't seem right to me. But then, I have become the 'fringe left' so that conscience thing simply means I am 'politically naive'.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

20. I didn't want to mention the *obvious* point he made: drown strikes are sloppy

Because everyone knows that innocents are being killed by drones in droves.

[haikugal]

55. Not just drones...

special ops...the presidents Seal Team 6....

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. SOME Democrats, Scahill --

some.

I saw that interview and think he was absolutely 100% right on. Can't wait to see his piece.

[Volaris]

19. What you said. It's NOT acceptable to ALL Democrats...

[idwiyo]

9. K&R

[ProSense]

11. This

"If it were 'Grandpa' McCain, Democrats would be up in arms."

...is such a bullshit straw man. I remember a lot of people "up in arms" about the Iraq war and torture. There was not massive outrage about drone strikes or targeting terrorists.

Anwar al-Awlaki vs. Kamal Derwish
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x787226
No, OMG an American was killed.

That is not to say the current outrage isn't justified, but there is no need to invent straw man bullshit about Obama making "assassination acceptable to Democrats."

There is also the issue of civilian casualties. So stop trying to insult people's intelligence by implying that they're not aware of the problem with drone strikes.

Unreported Strikes

At the time of this writing, the US is believed to have conducted 344 total strikes in Pakistan, 52 between June 17, 2004 and January 2, 2009 (under President Bush),[62] and 292 strikes between January 23, 2009 and September 2, 2012 (under President Obama).[63] Those numbers, which TBIJ has pieced together from available media reports,[64] may underestimate the total number of strikes, especially during the early years of the drone program.

Between 2004 and 2007, the Pakistani government under President Musharraf attempted to hide the fact of US strikes (and Pakistan’s role in them) by contending that the strikes were either Pakistani military operations, car bombs, or accidental explosions.[65] Many of those claims were contradicted within days or weeks by anonymous leaks and eyewitness accounts,[66] and by local journalists gathering evidence at the scenes of the attacks.[67] In one unusually well-publicized incident, an official in the Musharraf regime reportedly asserted that the Pakistani military had conducted a strike on a religious school in Bajaur that killed over 80 people, including 69 children.[68] One of Musharraf’s aides reportedly told a Pakistani media source that the government believed “it would be less damaging” to claim it had killed 82 people than it would be to reveal that it had agreed to let the US carry out strikes on Pakistani soil.[69] Musharraf’s administration was reported to admit that the strike had been a US operation only after political backlash from the strike turned out to be much greater than the government had anticipated.[70] Considering the Musharraf government’s apparent efforts to cover up the US’s role in drone strikes, and the fact that drones often target remote or isolated areas, it is possible that other strikes from the 2004-2007 period have yet to be identified.

Our team’s fieldwork in Pakistan documented at least one incident that might fit this pattern. We interviewed 15 Waziris, including four survivors and four more who visited the strike site within hours or days of the attack, who described to us what they believed to have been a drone strike that took place on June 10, 2006.[71] The attack took place in the early morning of June 10 on a workers’ bunkhouse in a chromite mining camp in the mountains near Datta Khel. In the bunkhouse, a large group of young miners and woodcutters were asleep. Missiles killed 22 and badly injured four. The press described the incident as a helicopter gunship attack carried out by the Pakistani military,[72] based on statements by Pakistani officials claiming responsibility.[73] The survivors and those killed were asleep before the first explosion and knocked unconscious shortly thereafter. In light of the classification by media sources (helicopter strike), the lack of available physical evidence given the remoteness of the location, the lack of eyewitness testimony to the source of the strike, and the significant passage of time since the attack, our research team could not determine whether this incident was a US drone strike or Pakistani helicopter strike, and so chose not to include this event as a drone strike.[74] Nonetheless, given the extensive loss of life, this incident should investigated thoroughly by competent authorities.

http://livingunderdrones.org/numbers/

Drone Program May Shift From CIA to Military

NEW YORK – A report in The Daily Beast today said that the Obama administration is considering taking targeted killing responsibilities from the CIA and placing them under the control of the military.

“Ending the CIA’s role as a paramilitary killing organization would be an important step in the right direction,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project. “President Obama took the CIA out of the torture and detention business, and it’s past time to do the same with targeted killings. As important as this change would be, the killing program is still wrapped in unwarranted secrecy, and is still unlawful in its scope, dangerous, and unwise. Far greater transparency and accountability for targeted killings must accompany any change of responsibility, and it remains to be seen whether the secretive Joint Special Operations Command will address those concerns.”

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/drone-program-may-shift-cia-military

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

25. Okay, "THIS" this: drone strike targets and kills 16 y/o American

Scahill also spoke about the assassination of 16 y/o American born Anwar al-Awlaki. The kid was in a restaurant eating with friends when a drone strike took him out.

Anwar al-Awlaki's Denver-born son Abdulrahman was, like his father, killed by American forces. The lesson from Abdulrahman's story, says Nation correspondent Jeremy Scahill, is that the US can aim "targeted strikes" at anyone—with impunity. "It’s the most horrific form of pre-crime," Scahill says. "They don’t know the identities of the people that they’ve been killing, they don’t know whether they’ve been involved in any activity, they are killed for who they might be or who they might one day become." Scahill joins Democracy Now! for a special hour-long segment on his new book, Dirty Wars.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173994/jeremy-scahill-secret-story-behind-obamas-assassination-two-americans-yemen


Obama Admin: A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike "should have [had] a far more responsible father," Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html


(The day you guys just leave "this" and "just sayin'" to conversations on your Facebook page can't come soon enough.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Yep. "Bring it on!" "Smoke 'em out!" Obama style. All that's missing is the cowboy boots.

[msongs]

13. bush 3 despite what the cult of personality members claim nt

[Bonobo]

14. Deny this is true and you should just change your name...

to either

"Fuh King Lyer"

or

"Indy Nile"

[ProSense]

15. Or

Deny this is true and you should just change your name...

to either

"Fuh King Lyer"

or

"Indy Nile"

...believe it and change your name to Bull Shitter.

Cute game.

[bahrbearian]

62. Thats Nonsense.

[uponit7771]

16. nope

[colsohlibgal]

17. Why Can't Obama See The Light?

The same can be said about his apologists, who are just like the Dubya apologists. Obama has the same type, they will rationalize everything. He can do no wrong in their eyes.

We continue creating more new terrorists than we take out. This isn't rocket science, it's common sense.

[Enrique]

51. stopping terrorism isn't the main objective

they believed the Iraq war would increase the risk of terrorism, and it did. If the drone strikes increase terrorism in the long run, who cares? they get short term political benefits and of course a lot of people make a shitload of money from the unending war on terror.

[question everything]

18. Very sober interview

For a change, Maher did not cut him off and let him talk.

One point: no one currently in Afghanistan can understand what we are still doing there.

Right! So what are we waiting for? We lost this war when we abandoned Afghanistan to get into Iraq.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

28. no one in Afghanistan understand what we are doing there - I'll take a crack at it!

One thing that presidents have learned, war presidents get re-elected.

That's what I got.

[OnyxCollie]

32. A trillion dollars worth of mineral deposits are why we are still in Afghanistan.

[question everything]

54. And... are we mining? Do we have license or permit to mine?

Is killing innocent civilians and spreading hatred the way to go?

Yes, I know, naive. Still, it is one thing to be interested in local raw material, and another thing to actually procure it. No?

[OnyxCollie]

66. It comes along with the (hegemonic) territory.

Control over markets, control over currency, control over material resources, and competitive advantage in manufactured goods.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. It's acceptable to Democrats,...but not Liberals....

The two are NOT synonymous.

[Iliyah]

26. Wow.

I'm a Dem and maybe not in your terms a Liberal. Please tell me about liberals. I'm here in a community that dislikes drones and disliked the invasion of Iraqi war. All creates hatred, but lets not stop there. Tell me about hatred and, ummmmmmmm, hatred. Tell me about the hatred also generated through out beloved media and politicians, huh. Tell me about Sharia Law compared to Christian beliefs.

Don't lecture me about liberals.

[cui bono]

36. It's true. There are plenty of Dems on here that are far from liberal.

I'd respond to specific things you said but I honestly don't understand what you're talking about, and really don't understand why the post you are replying to made you so angry.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. Easy. Liberals aim for world peace...

Part of that is respecting everyone's right to exist.

Here's how they play the game in DC:

Republicans say they would like to kill EVERYONE in the Middle East.

Democrats try to compromise with that position so only half of the people get killed.

Then Republicans point and scream that Democrats are killing half of the people.

Democrats then stand there like idiots saying, "But you told us to, you told us to, you told us to."

This is the game and it's repeated due to the fact that Democrats are tossing aside their Liberal Base and therefore have no principles.

[haikugal]

56. Sharia law compared to Christian beliefs....WTF???

[blkmusclmachine]

22. Not to this DEM he didn't. Obama isn't a real DEM, anyway.

I'm not buying BHO's repackaged '90s Republicanism as the New DEM Party. NO WAY.

[babylonsister]

29. We know that. You buy nothing about Obama. I 'get' it. nt

[OnyxCollie]

31. Oh, please.

Last edited Sat May 4, 2013, 03:10 AM - Edit history (1)

You lost any objectivity over four years ago.

You admitted to me that you were biased when it came to Obama, so really, who cares what you think?

[bvar22]

46. True Dat!

*

[bahrbearian]

61. Right on , No Credibility

[countmyvote4real]

23. Sad, but true.

Unless the facts are discarded (in a Presidential library.)

[reformist2]

24. It's hyperbole, but he's doing it to prod us into action.

[babylonsister]

27. Cause Scahill says so? Baloney. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

33. Explain away. You must have some insight, here.

I could probably learn a lot on this subject from you.

[ucrdem]

37. Scahill's a whiz when it comes to drones

but I think he's also a ratfucker, i.e. payrolled by undisclosed organizations hostile to the current administration. I came to that conclusion five years ago when Obama was running against Palin and McCain. Listen to one of Scahill's star turns on Democracy Now, another dubious enterprise, and he can't go five minutes without dramatically claiming that Obama and/or Holder aren't just pushovers who let the GOP roll over them, but actually more diabolical, more dangerous, more relentlessly destroying the planet and the Constitution than either Bush or Cheney who come off as boy scouts in comparison. Come on. It's obvious, at least to me. He's a player like Hedges and Greenwald and many another. And Maher is a shameless tool.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

38. Nice ad hominen!

People use those in arguments merely to attempt to discredit their antagonist. You could have rambled for 3 more paragraphs, or you could have just said "baloney." Both equally ineffective.

[ucrdem]

39. There's no ad hominem fallacy in what I posted.

I don't think you understand what the term means.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

41. And that's "pot calling the kettle black"

You're on a roll!!

[burnodo]

42. "Democracy Now, another dubious enterprise"

[WorseBeforeBetter]

81. I'm still laughing at that one. (n/t)

[Oilwellian]

44. ROFL

You are just too precious.

[ucrdem]

45. Did you read the OP?

Exactly what I noticed 5 years ago:

If it were "Grandpa" McCain, Democrats would be up in arms.

The implication being that we'd do better under a Palin-McCain administration because Dems wouldn't let them get away with anything, whereas Obama and Holder have us fooled into giving our consent to drones, as if they were the square root of evil. And if drones hadn't been handy there would be some equally exaggerated peril.

That's the same bullshit logic that convinced me five years ago that Scahill's just another sheepdipped ratfucker, and nothing he's accomplished since then has caused me to think otherwise.

[burnodo]

47. you really got that from what Scahill said?

...that we'd be better under a McCain-Palin administration because he was complaining about Democrats willingness to support Obama on this issue? Your comprehension protocols must be different than mine.

[truebrit71]

71. No shit...

..that is entirely NOT what Scahill was saying...

[ucrdem]

76. He's been saying it repeatedly for five years.

It's hard to miss once you catch on.

[burnodo]

80. saying that he wished McCain won?

please show me some specifics

[ucrdem]

82. Those are your words, not mine. (n/t)

[burnodo]

83. Your words

are a mess. Scahill has been attacking the military establishment in our country on both sides of the ideological fence. For you to say he protects Bush/Cheney and goes after Obama with the idea in mind that McCain should have won is beyond ridiculous.

[bvar22]

50. Gee, was he paid by the same undisclosed organizations to Rat Fuck Bush all those years too?

Between 2001-2003, Scahill reported frequently from Baghdad for Democracy Now! and other media outlets. As the Iraq invasion began, Scahill appeared frequently on Democracy Now!, often co-hosting with Amy Goodman.[14]

Scahill has reported from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, the former Yugoslavia,[15] post-Katrina Louisiana,[16] and elsewhere across the globe. Scahill is a frequent guest on a wide array of programs, appearing regularly on The Rachel Maddow Show,[17] Real Time with Bill Maher,[18] and Democracy Now![19] He has also appeared on ABC World News, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, The Daily Show,[20] CNN, The NewsHour, MSNBC,[21] "Bill Moyers Journal,"[22] and NPR.[23][24][25] In addition, Scahill has written for The Times, the Sunday Telegraph, the BBC, The Indypendent,[26] The Los Angeles Times,[27] Z Magazine,[28] Socialist Worker,[29] International Socialist Review,[30] The Progressive,[31] "In These Times,[32] and The Guardian.[33] In addition, Scahill has posted material to the websites Alternet[34] and CounterPunch.[35]

He has been a vocal critic of private military contractors, particularly Blackwater Worldwide, which is the subject of his book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.[36] The book received numerous accolades, including the Alternet Best Book of the Year Award, a spot on both the Barnes & Noble and Amazon lists of the Best Nonfiction Books of 2007, and notable mention in the New York Times.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Scahill

Scahill is one of our premier Investigative Journalists in a time when few remain.
He has remained consistent whether Bush or Obama was in the White House.

If you want to find "rat fuckers" (people without a Moral Compass), find those who change their view on The Issues when different personalities occupy the White House.
If it was NOT OK when Bush did it,
its NOT OK when Obama does it.


Your post was the best Joke of the Day so far.

The sad thing is that that is becoming an increasingly popular attack on those with a Moral Compass at DU,...
that somehow anyone STILL against our MilitaryCorporate
World Domination through Murder and Torture must be on somebody's payroll
to help the Republicans.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their [ipromises or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ucrdem]

59. He didn't ratfuck Bush and Cheney. He whitewashed them.

And he's still at it. He blames their wars on Blackwater for example:

Jeremy Scahill blows the lid off "Blackwater's Secret War in Pakistan"

http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2009/11/23/breaking-jeremy-scahill-blows-lid-off-blackwaters-secret-war-in-pakistan/

Scahill's first book is about Blackwater, not Bush or Cheney, and when he has to get personal he goes after Eric Prince, for moving to Abu Dhabi for example.

But he's been tearing into Obama relentlessly since before he was elected or had anything to do with drones. And Scahill can always be counted to make the point that Obama and Holder are worse than Bush and Cheney:

Video: Jeremy Scahill: Drone Killer Obama Is Out-Cheneying Cheney

http://www.qwmagazine.com/2012/06/04/video-jeremy-scahill-drone-killer-obama-is-out-cheneying-cheney/

And Scahill is but one beneficiary of the NYT "kill list" story that's been paying the bills for reliable ratfuckers everywhere for going on a year.

[bvar22]

63. Oh, I see what your problem is.

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)

You equate criticizing a POLICY with hating the person who enacts that policy.

CLUE:
[font size=3]It is NOT about WHO is sitting in the Oval Office.
Is IS about BAD POLICY,
and our democracy depends on those who are willing to point that out.[/font]

[ucrdem]

64. If Scahill et al. were just criticizing a policy

they wouldn't be ratfuckers. But they aren't, and they are, and if they weren't they wouldn't star in countless threads like this one.

[bvar22]

70. Now THAT is so nonsensical and utterly without merit,

...that it is not worth this reply.

Here is a list of Logical Fallacies.
You should go take a look.
That would save you from future embarrassment.
No charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies...

[font size=1 color=gray]Psst. Really, man. Go take a look....for your own good.
People are laughing.[/font]

[Electric Monk]

72. LOL @ jury results for your post here

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Nasty, condescending personal attacks on a newbie from the LAST person on this web site who needs to be condescending to anyone.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 4, 2013, 09:06 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think I'd have voted to hide a couple of ucrdem's posts if I was on those juries, but I'm not. I won't hide this one from bvar22 because I think they're spot on. I hope this goes 0-6 and the alerter loses their privileges for a day.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[ucrdem]

78. Thank you, alerter. (n/t)

[Electric Monk]

79. For what, giving up their alerting privilegesfor a day? lol nt

[sabrina 1]

69. Thank you. It's really so simple you wonder why some people just can't get it.

[ucrdem]

77. It is simple, yes, and I wonder the same thing.

Seriously. Try this: watch the MSNBC video I posted, reposted below. Scahill's bit starts at 6:00. When he starts, ask yourself, is this a reporter sharing reportage or a talking head reeling off talking points? And you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Video link:

http://www.qwmagazine.com/2012/06/04/video-jeremy-scahill-drone-killer-obama-is-out-cheneying-cheney/

[Hissyspit]

74. Oh good grief.

[bobduca]

85. OMG!!! so many ratfuckers fucking rats!!111

HE NEVER LOVED OBAMA!!!11111

funny i recall Scahill being a VOCAL critic during the Bush administration..
Maybe its because i was listening to that "dubious enterprise" democracy now?

What MSM lies were you swallowing then?

[Wind Dancer]

52. When you make that type of accusation...

I suggest you back it up with facts. You don't like what Scahill says so you immediately claim he's on somebody's payroll. It's the standard method of operation to try and discredit a person.

You failed miserably.

[olddots]

57. substantiate even a fraction of your claims

clean your own house too though.

[ucrdem]

60. Sure. Here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022795685#post59

You're welcome.

[Hissyspit]

73. Yeah, about that...

Maybe it's principles.

[bobduca]

84. Yeah Democracy Now "another dubious enterprise"

[geek tragedy]

40. No. Democrats didn't object to Bush because

he killed terrorists.

[winter is coming]

43. Yeah, not so much. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

53. I have preferred assassination over war long before Obama took office. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

68. "assassination" is a euphamism for what's happenning

Republicans have taught us how to play the euphemism game, Ministry of Peace.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Not only acceptable but embraceable by some.

[Pisces]

65. Yet this was made transparent. We know about it and the administration acknowledged it. What none

pointed out was that in times past the CIA would assissinate whoever they saw fit and no one was the wiser. I guess we should just
go back to the good ole days. We have never been the shining beacon on the hill, but of course it is a better story to say that Obama
has tarnished our image. This is crap. We have carried out secret wars, secret killings, and have always interrogated with torture
when the government felt it was required. We have also had secret prison facilities that house special inmates that no one knew about.

[ucrdem]

67. That's a really good point.

In fact I started a thread on the same back in February:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251285523

It didn't get many replies. Meanwhile this one keeps returning from the grave to make the same hollow claims over and over, and when it finally expires others will rise to praise Jeremy or Glenn or Chris or Julian for confabulating shamelessly to malign the most enlightened Dem administration since John John and Caroline roamed the White House nursery. Go figure.

[Doctor_J]

75. Yup. And SS benefit cuts,

and Medicare benefit cuts, and torture, and Gitmo...

He has destroyed the soul of the party.