Well It Looks Like The Obama Administration Now Owns The Torture Issue......

[global1]

Gibbs is pushing the 'move forward' meme and there will be no prosecutions.

Now that's change we can believe in. (sarcasm)

[polichick]

1. I got a call during the Gibbs' presser and had to mute it - what did he say??

[bdamomma]

2. if Obama does not do anything we need to push this join the ACLU.

this is truly frustrating Cheney must so giddy right now. Can you hear him say well I guess we did not do anything illegal?? totally frustrating, letting the murderers go scott free

[Thrill]

3. Here we go with this shit again. Can people come up with another saying?

Every time something happens you don't agree with, we hear this bullshit about "this is change" "thats not change we can believe in". It was overused the first couple of weeks after the election.

You already had change when he released the memos. You sure as hell wouldn't have even got that with McCain.

[ErinBerin84]

12. no kidding, it's right up there with "under the bus" , etc.

[TheBigotBasher]

44. I hate that phrase under the bus.

But then it comes from a particular type of idiotic fool anyway. So cheers for calling that one out as well.

[bigwillq]

15. That's the bad side

to political campaign slogans.

We saw the good. But with the good comes the bad.

[frylock]

27. Here we go with this shit again. Can people come up with another saying?

Every time something happens you don't agree with, we hear this bullshit about "would you rather have McCain" "can you imagine if Palin were in the Whitehouse?" It was overused the first couple of weeks after the election.

There had better be more change than a couple of released memos. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of compromising my values and voting for your precious dem candidates when I can throw my vote away on a third-party candidate. And yes, I'm as serious as a fucking heart attack.

[Political Tiger]

4. Funny, I never heard anyone say Ford "owned" Watergate for pardoning Nixon.

eom

[NJmaverick]

14. That's because people were more politically sane back then

A statement as ridiculous as the one put forth by the OP would never pass the smell test.

[DevonRex]

5. Hmm. Why would a democrat deflect the attention from the actual torturers in the * admin

and try to pin it on Obama? That's a freeper thing to do there, bud.

[Solomon]

24. He owns it because we're not torturing anymore.

[MadBadger]

6. You have said that Obama owns the issue but dont really have an explanation of how he owns it.

[Arkana]

48. Your words in that post combined with Bobby Jindal as Kenneth

made me laugh way too hard.

[ThirdWorldJohn]

7. It is a politician's trick to move past the issue while ignoring it. N/T

[ErinBerin84]

8. the "we have to move forward" line is really not enough and it's disappointing

But, he still seems to be evasive on the issue a little bit to me, it's probably just giving me false hope. I wish they would just give a straight answer. Here's what I wrote in another thread.

"that I don't really get, is that the question asks specifically about BUSH officials, but Gibbs' first part of the answer repeated the line about people who did these tactics "in good faith" from the justice department that they were legal. And Ed Henry repeated that that wasn't the questions, and Gibbs said again that Obama has banned these techniques, and Ed Henry asked AGAIN about Bush officials. Gibbs repeated the line about moving forward. I wish they would just give a straight answer. Waffling on it is just giving me false hope about the Newsweek article about Holder thinking about seeking outside counsil, but I don't know how to interpret it as just Gibbs not having any good answer to give or not being able to say more. Unfortunately, I'm thinking it's the former."

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mvd]

10. I don't understand how people can be criticized for wanting more change

The country needs wholesale changes, and on this particular issue, the memos aren't enough. I would be patient if he hadn't ruled things out already.

[Connie_Corleone]

11. Quit with the fucking "now that's change we can believe in" sarcasm.

Smart asses can come up with something different by now.

On edit: You were fine until you put that stupid sarcasm line in at the end.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Thanks for trotting out the latest RNC talking points!

[Dragonfli]

16. It would seem that my peers here do not see a problem

With a Democrat placing war criminals above the law - they don't seem to understand how that buys it.

I for one hold allegiance to the constitution and rule of law.

No doubt my lack of support for the ridiculous assertion that justice = retribution and moving forward means a get out of jail free card for international law breakers will also have the effect of having me called a freeper.

It is wrong when they do it - it is wrong when we do it.

RECOMMENDED and thank you for resisting the urge to be the (D) equivalent to the "good germans" that were "patriotic" enough to overlook war crimes done in the name of the Homeland.

[Fire1]

17. All of that is fine and dandy but that does not make Obama

'own' the torture crimes.

[Dragonfli]

22. By placing criminals above the law you are aiding their escape from justice.

By aiding them after the fact you become part of the crew. A getaway driver is just as guilty as the guy that robs the bank.

top playing dense you know damn well what it is and what he now owns (and approves of to the point that he feels no law worthy of prosecution was committed).

[Fire1]

25. Obama does not by any means 'own' these crimes. Bush

perpetrated these crimes. Not Obama. But, why cry foul NOW?? Where was this outrage when it was HAPPENING?? There MAY be an independent prosecutor assigned. Who knows? Did Ford 'own' Watergate? No.

[cali]

18. sure I have a problem with it

but sorry, it's false equivalency to state that Obama owns torture. bushco owns torture. they're the ones who perpetrated it. Furthermore, we're getting mixed messages from the obama admin. Emanuel and Gibbs say no prosecutions, and Newsweek reports that Holder is considering appointing a special prosecutor.

The fact is that most countries, sadly enough, don't prosecute the war criminals and torturers of former regimes. France, for instance, issued amnesty twice for torturers in Algeria. Spain didn't prosecute members of Franco's regime. It's only as of 2008 that they've started to look at crimes under that regime. I'm not excusing that, or saying we should follow in those not so illustrious footsteps, but I am pointing out the wider world context.

So, yes. Obama is flat wrong on this if they don't prosecute, but let's stop pretending we're exceptional.

[JuniperLea]

29. Have we seen the final outcome of this yet?

No. No we have not.

I think your concern is pre-emptive at best.

Obama plays a mean game of gotcha, and an even better game of rope a dope. Anyone the slightest bit sensitive to nuance has seen this and now knows to give things a little time, and to think a few moves down the line.

[Dragonfli]

30. You think Gibbs lied then in the press conference?

Could be. I suppose that when he said there would be no prosecutions for policy makers or torture experts I thought he was telling the truth.

I never thought my only hope for rule of law would be a hope that a press secretary and chief of staff were both lying.

I suppose it is the only hope left and that is why you are clinging to it.

[JuniperLea]

35. Today's lie could be tomorrow's something else...

Nuance really does escape you, doesn't it. It must be nice living in a completely black and white world... or not.

[Dragonfli]

37. he said it straight out - perhaps you could translate the nuance

what did he say if what he said is not meant to be understood in english. Is there a code?

[JuniperLea]

40. As if to illustrate my point...

:banghead:

[Dragonfli]

42. Please just answer the question

When do we know if what is said should be read in english or "they don't really mean it"
You claim Gibbs was being nuanced, I am willing to learn. I took him at his word, why can't you tell me what my lying ears missed if it is so obvious.

I didn't know why he would say it straight out if he were trying to be nuanced and I don't understand why my confusion is not obvious to you and why it angers you that I think I know what those words mean.

If you don't have an answer just say so, I just want to know what I should believe when the administration tells me things.

How do YOU know what he meant if what he said was "there will be no prosecutions" and you somehow take away a different meaning than the english I learned in school. That just does not sound nuanced. too simple, too easy to know what the sentence means on it's face. What am I missing?

[Median Democrat]

19. Yeah, there is no difference between McCain and Obama...

:sarcasm:

President Obama does not agree with a DUer on a particular issue, then they are ready to throw his entire Presidency under the bus as not constituting change. Unbelievable.

[bigjohn16]

26. This issue is not some small little policy issue.

It's the Obama administration giving a pass to tortures and those who gave the orders. It's not something I can just respectfully disagree on I'm afraid this is one of those all or nothing issues for me.

[Fire1]

32. As far as I'm concerned these are people that never wanted

him in as President, anyway.

[TexasObserver]

20. No, it doesn't. Not even close.

Obama is smarter than his critics, which is why he almost always succeeds, while they fail. In this instance, Obama knows that he must let the information out, and wait until the groundswell of public outrage demands action against the perps. He knows that this requires the public getting behind it first, so he lets out information that allows the public to develop that outrage.

[WI_DEM]

21. oh, shut up.

I know that is not terribly insightful or helpful, just like hearing for the umpteenth time from one of you, "Now that's change we can believe in" from people who never liked Obama and never find anything good to say about him.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Your hyperbole emulates the teabaggers. n/t

[mzmolly]

28. I have to disagree.

Obama is closing Guantanamo and refusing to engage in the same tactics going forward.

[bigjohn16]

33. While giving legal cover to torturers and their leash holders. nt

[mzmolly]

36. It's too soon to tell, frankly.

One can critique the fact that he isn't going to prosecute but that does not make him equivalent to those who ordered such acts.

[bigjohn16]

38. I'm seeing some stories come out about possible investigations.

I'm cautiously optimistic for now.

[mzmolly]

41. As am I.

I think Obama is going to be thoughtful about how he does everything (including holding Bushco. accountable) and I find that quite refreshing.

[Peacetrain]

31. Actually "WE" own the issue.. by the people we put in office for the last 8 years

[Fire1]

34. Unequivocally so!!!!

[zulchzulu]

39. Is that a real Teabag or a Sears Teabag?

Uninformed much?

[Danger Mouse]

43. It's a mark of shame on all of America.

[mmonk]

45. Lock, stock, and barrel.

[pat_k]

46. K&R

[Kablooie]

47. Boy, that's not going to earn Obama a lot of fans around here.

[Cha]

49. Too bad your

sarcasm is misplaced.