Is Turley driving anyone else crazy except me?

[Hamlette]

I now turn off the TV whenever he starts in. I listen to him for as long as I can but that is not very long. He is a one hit wonder. Yes, it is a war crime, yes the whole thing is a big f*** up, but if you don't have anything new or interesting to say, I've heard it before.

And his whine, like he is pleading with us to please stop everything we are doing and go after these creeps.

Do not get me wrong. I think there needs to be a full and OPEN investigation into what happened. Then, if prosecution is warranted, lets go for it. And if we are not going to prosecute, get Lindy England out of jail.

But its all the same whine with him. You'd think he might be able to provide some insight into a different issue once in awhile.

/rant off/

[Cant trust em]

1. I agree with you.

He's on Rachel Maddow practically once a week. I don't disagree with his idea, I just don't like his style.

[avaistheone1]

3. His style?

lol He stands for principles this country was built on.
...and all you say you object to his style.

:rofl:

[Cant trust em]

10. If all I have to complain about is his style wouldn't that be a good thing?

[Hamlette]

26. By style, I mean whining

he has an edge to his voice I find annoying but that is not what stops me from listening to him, what annoys me is that he says the same thing each time he's on TV. Maybe the whine is because he too is getting tired of being asked the same question.

And I have to admit, like another poster downstream, it is hard for me to forgive him for feeding the crazies over the Clinton impeachment. There is a part of me that finds him disingenuous perhaps, because of it. Does he think all presidents should be impeached? Tried?

And for those of you who think he should say it everyday, if you are watching KO or RM, you are already convinced. He's preaching to the choir.

[ShortnFiery]

55. By *whining,* do you mean similar to what you are ATTEMPTING to shove down our throats with innuendo

here within this (SMEAR TURLEY, THE WHINER) thread? :shrug:

[flyarm]

163. thank you ShortnFiery!!!

seems the excusers and propagandists are out in full force!

and i am damn sick of them!

[roguevalley]

121. amazing isn't it. he has been nearly alone in starting this. sing, Jonathan.

I am grateful to you.

[jhrobbins]

137. Me too -I love him and about the CLinton thing - as much as I love the 'Bill'

Turley was simply doing then what he is doing now - pointing out the legal issues and Clinton was wrong. So, I can't fault him for doing what he is supposed to do as a law professor and as an attorney.

[Hamlette]

151. you believe Clinton should have been impeached?

I'm not a huge fan of Bill but I do not think what he did should have resulted in impeachment. Turley did. And he went on TV every night (or so it seems to me) to say so.

Not all attorneys agree. Not all law professors agree. I do not agree with Turley on Clinton. I might agree with him on torture but I'd like to see all the evidence first.

[jhrobbins]

157. What exactly are you talking about that Clinton 'did'? It's my understanding

that Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Is that what you mean? Also, know that I am a total Clinton devotee, so this is not Clinton bashing.

[Hamlette]

161. yeah, that's what I'm talking about

he lied about sex. Turley thought he should have been impeached and convicted. For not wanting to tell the world he got a blow job from a consenting adult. Turley's legal analysis was complete bull shit. And he gave cover to the GOP for their coup attempt.

[ShortnFiery]

171. No, Turley is guilty of only one thing: NOT being "a partisan."

BTW many of us "staunch democrats" believe Clinton should have RESIGNED and he instead placed his own personal ambitions above that of the country.

No, no matter how WONDERFUL Obama is as a person and leader, he can't "get off the hook" by helping the GOP to cover up war crimes.

[Hamlette]

179. I got nothin'

if you think Clinton should have resigned over that, we are too far apart to find middle. I believe if Clinton had resigned because the right threatened impeachment, Obama would have already been impeached for bowing to the shiek or ordering Dijon mustard on his hamburger.

[roguevalley]

176. agreed. you can love Bill and hate him too, like your smart but crazy

uncle vern

[quiller4]

147. Did you feel the same way when Turley was all over the

airwaves upporting impeachment of Bill Clinton? He is a publicity hound and an over-eager prosecutor. He gives "shoot from the lip" answers to difficult constitutional questions. Once in awhile I agree with him but that doesn't mean I want to listen to him daily on all my favorite shows.

[quiller4]

87. Me too. n/t

[avaistheone1]

2. Shame on Turley for whining about torture and the Constitution.

He should be talking about something more important like puppies and toned arms.

[JayMusgrove]

92. Second sarcastic laugh of the day! Thanks!

[valerief]

4. Keep it up, Turley. Viewers need to hear this each and every day.

Too many people are unaware. If 'knowledgeable' people get bored with it, so be it. It's a small price to pay to fight against torture.

[Perky]

20. No we really don't

We get it really we do/ We just want hear from other learned voices as well

[roguevalley]

123. well, where are they? He has been first and he sees it all going

away. I don't blame him.

[flyarm]

187. bullshit , it is people like you that would like this buried forever..well it won't be!

and I hope to god Turley never stops talking about it..because unless there is investigations by indep prosecutors..we all walk this earth with bullseyes on our backs..for hundreds of years to come..is that so hard for some of you to understand?????????????????????

[ClayZ]

191. Ditto! We need to put the criminals in jail?

I hope Turley keeps talking about it until the jailer turns the keys on their jail cells.

[atreides1]

5. I disagree

I think the subject should be discussed often, because Americans tend to be forgetful when the subject is changed.

[movonne]

6. I like Turley a lot....it seems to me that you have to repeat things

over and over in order to get the public to pay attention

[Political Tiger]

49. I think it has the opposite effect.

The more one repeats himself the more the tendency is to tune the repeater out.

A good example is the Repuke Party. They've been saying the same thing over and over for the last decade and nobody listens to them anymore.

[dmr]

148. I'd rather he continue until it sinks in to those who are not as aware as

as you and I; or in case they get lulled back into another GOP spell.

About those repetitious Republicans - presently they aren't saying anything voters can trust, and while Americans may be tuning them out today, eventually they will hear - because the GOP voice is constantly out there. For that very reason, we must be out there consistently countering the GOPs war of words.

It's a vicious cycle.

[polichick]

7. He's right - I only wish people weren't so easily placated. We should be...

...demanding day in and day out that Cheney & Co. stand trial.

[jkshaw]

8. He's suffering from overexposure and repetition-itis

I wish Rachel and Keith would find other constitutional scholars to talk on this very important subject. There must be many of them available.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Overexposure? Hell, I can't see him enough - he speaks THE TRUTH. It's uncomfortable but REAL. nt.

[Supersedeas]

216. Two minutes of truth overwhelms the 23plus hours of Media excuses and diversions

I guess

[truebrit71]

9. Just you...he needs to KEEP saying it until something gets done...

...this whole "bygones be bygones" shit is not going to work...

Laws were broken, investigate and then prosecute. Very, VERY simple..

[Supersedeas]

39. we hear almost everyday that present Admins don't prosecute past ones--what about enforcing the law

everyday....or does the Constitution need a vacation...no whining about the Constitution and International treaties because you know...we are tired of Constitional Law Professors and their concern over the Constitution....maybe Turley should talk about Pagent winners and the reimaging of the Republican Party--we can never get enough of that.

[bluestateguy]

11. He was a cheerleader for the Clinton impeachment in 1998-99

I will never forgive nor forget that. He was constantly on TV every day back then to belittle Clinton's defense and legitimize the impeachment nonsense.

I have a long memory.

[avaistheone1]

14. I don't care what he was cheerleading for in the past. Turley is right on torture AND

may he continue to whine about it until everyone in this country gets off their butts and demands our government be held accountable. Good on Turley.

[frylock]

15. on TV every day back then to belittle Clinton's defense..

depends on what the meaning of is is. shame on Turley for belittling Clinton's awesome strategy of lying out his ass.

[roguevalley]

124. truly. after watching John Edwards fuck up and lie, I find it hard to

take lying politicians who can't keep it in their pants, especially knowing how AWFUL and NIHILISTIC the opposition is. The meaning of is. Shit.

[DJ13]

12. Dont blame Turley, blame which ever show he's on

Turley only comes on to talk about what they brought him on to talk about.

Im sure there are other issues that interest him, but he has to respond to the questions posed to him.

[Perky]

19. Yep it is KO's and Rachel's fault.

[babylonsister]

13. He's driving me nuts, too, perhaps because of the repetition.

I think at least some fresh blood needs to present the case. I'm wondering why Turley is always 'it'? There's got to be someone else out there with similar views.

[Cha]

118. Peeps should write KO and Rachel

with their views on this.. I don't have the cable so I can't give my opinion but it sounds like they need some feedback if they want the criminals prosecuted.

Keith Olberman [e-mail]
Rachel Maddow [e-mail]

Variety is the Spice of Life~

[frylock]

16. nope..

i think the only people annoyed are the cheerleaders and asskissers. i hope he's on everyday, whining and pleading, until Holder does his fucking job.

[ellacott]

17. It's funny that you think whining will make him do anything

[frylock]

32. i was paraphrasing the OP..

And his whine, like he is pleading with us to please stop everything we are doing and go after these creeps.

[ellacott]

63. Ok, now I understand

:)

[Hamlette]

24. been some time since I've been called a torture cheerleader and an asskisser

well, since....never.

You have no idea who I am and until you do your name calling is baseless and offensive.

[frylock]

31. are you not complaining on the airtime mr. turley is receiving?

the asskissing and cheerleading was in reference to the unadulterated adulation that President Obama, or just about any Dem, receives around here. if you assumed i was calling you a cheerleader for torture, then you're mistaken.

[Hamlette]

50. I wouldn't care if he was on every day

if he had something new to say that I had not heard from him a million times before if he didn't whine, and if he didn't presume to treat me like an idiot.

And your reply was directed at me since I said I was annoyed. Nice try.

By saying I am a cheerleader and asskisser because I find Turley annoying, might you not be of the same stripe by not allowing dissent from your sainted Turley?

He is a pompous, arrogant ass. Bring back John Dean who doesn't just repeat himself each time he is on.

[frylock]

107. contact dean's agent..

tell him you want to see more John Dean on the TV. i don't think Turley is shopping himself out to MSNBC. they're calling him!!!

[Binka]

194. Oh Boy This ONE Is All Scrunched Up

Curious. The Saint Turley comment is interesting.

[ChiciB1]

78. Don't "Holder" Your Breath! But Turley Has The Facts To Support His Position... n/t

[Supersedeas]

95. spot on frylock...more Turley not less

[Perky]

18. Yo and I agree, ALthought he is not whingins as he his is a broken record.

It would help KO and Rachel immensely if they got other voices on the issue. Turly ois lobbing spitballs form the cheap seats. It is NOT that he is wrong, They just need other voices validating what he has said from a different perspective.

[Thrill]

21. He loves to hear himself talk. Thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

I've been turned off by him since the Clinton stuff

[avaistheone1]

25. Turns out he is smarter.

Then you are not turned off enough by the torture stuff.

I should be surprised.

[Thrill]

41. No he's just arrogant

You can be smart and not pompous.

[avaistheone1]

60. Why should worry about torture and the Constitution when we can worry about pompousness?

Reading your posts is like watching Faux News. Not much difference anymore.

[Thrill]

67. I'm responding to the purpose of the thread. Not whether we should worry about torture.

The question was asked Is Turley driving anyone else crazy except me?

And I responded with an answer. It has nothing to do with whether we should be worrying about the Constitution. Reading your post is like reading something on FR. Not much difference.

[Hamlette]

29. Yes, that is certainly part of if.

It's like he's saying "You people are idiots. Don't you get it?" Which of course was exactly how Bush and Cheney addressed us. If you can't make your case, stop just saying the same thing over and over and whining about it.

He is a pompous ass...IMHO.

[ShortnFiery]

52. Yes, Hamlette vs. Professor Turley?

I rest my case. :(

[avaistheone1]

62. Pompous asses who support the Constitution and the Geneva Convention

are the real patriots and they belong front and center on television and radio every damn day.

[grantcart]

22. I understand that the Magistrate is a big fan, Sir.

[FrenchieCat]

23. It would be helpful if shows like Rachel's and Olbermann's would

find more than just Turley to speak on this.
The trick is to get as many voices as one can saying the same thing,
not the same voice over and over again.

Turley may be right, but if it is only him saying it day in, day out,
folks start to wonder why no other scholars are being invited to say the same thing.
So I don't think it is him so much as the fact that no matter how many times he says what he says,
he gets no backup from other credible sources.....and so it allows folks to focus on him at some point, instead of what he is saying. This actually works against the message,
because one starts to look at the messenger rather than listening to the message...

The other problem is that Turley takes a punitive approach towards the Obama administration,
instead of focusing on the crimes perpetuated and offering advice....
as the Obama administration hasn't really done anything yet, one way or the other.

So unfortunately, the way Turley goes on and on about how this Administration is as bad
as the Bush administration most likely turns people off, and makes the message less believable....
and Turley should be wanting the real issue to be torture and the type of crime that it is and what should be done about it; that's what people should walk away with....
not the fact that the Obama administration is falling short.
Too many people hear that message from the Pubs on a daily basis, and so Turley's message
may shut some folks off who might have otherwise agreed....as approach is everything.

However, I fault KO and Rachel for this....because it says that they can't seem to find anyone else
to put out a similar message, and that they don't seem to know how to sheperd Turley into
concentrating on what was done that is egretious....and all he does is talk as though the Obama admin
has already done something wrong, when the process is still ongoing.

[avaistheone1]

27. John Dean has been saying many of these same things

as well as other experts.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Yes, but John Dean has only been on a couple of times.....

and he writes about it....

and his is not a punitive approach toward the new administration.

Big difference!

[avaistheone1]

35. What do you mean punitive approach to the new admin?

[FrenchieCat]

47. Just what I said.

If you don't get it, then I can't help you. sorry.

[avaistheone1]

51. Don't bother. You have a weak argument that you can't explain.

You are in over your head. Got it.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Weak is relative.

I made my point, and I believe I did just fine. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8393560&mesg_id=8393685

Let's just say, my post wasn't a one sentence snark,
and folks might differ in the opinion that I needed to explain anything beyond my initial post.

Plus, I'm not arguing....you are.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Oh come on! Punitive approach to TORTURE?!? Who'd thunk it.

:eyes:

This will COME BACK to Obama if he does not ensure that TORTURE "in our name" is not fully investigated and prosecuted.

I suspect that you're mostly concerned as to how it may affect Obama? Just perhaps you may be considering HIS IMAGE above the need for justice?

Just perhaps based on your unyielding defense of ever damn think he does. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

43. You make the distinction that Turley often forgets to make....

you say..... IF he does not ensure that TORTURE "in our name" is not fully investigated and prosecuted.

As for your out and out accusations against me, that is when you start sounding like Turley....
because no matter what you say, you really don't know me well enough to get crazy with me.
I try not to accuse you of shit, and I would appreciate the same kind of respect.

[ShortnFiery]

48. It's NOT an accusation when it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE. No disrespect but you tend

to overlook any foibles that Obama shows.

Turley is correct. And, of course, you are an unwitting contributor to assist "the power elite" who wish to PUNISH anyone who will not abide with the status quo within The Beltway.

All I'm asking for is a little independent thought and curiosity.

[FrenchieCat]

54. My initial post here on Turley was quite reasoned in what the problem is that some may have

If you had actually read my post, you'd see that I don't state that Turley is incorrect
in his bigger point.....although you may not have noticed what I said because you were too busy stereotyping me.

Further, you post here and say things that I don't necessarily agree with....
and yet I still resist stereotyping you and simply making assumptions
as to what you are about.

If you want to read into my post on Turley as a defense of the President,
then perhaps you are the one with the problem, one being reading comprehension,
and the other, focusing on me personally instead of what I said.

Civility is a virtue. I suggest you try it.

[ShortnFiery]

76. I am civil. Have you ONCE ever disagreed with Obama? It's your opinion I'm attacking NOT your ...

intelligence so I don't consider the "reading comprehension" comment the least bit civil.

How bout you consider practicing what you preach?

[frylock]

109. Have you ONCE ever disagreed with Obama?

*crickets*

[noiretextatique]

141. ...

:popcorn:

[flyarm]

168. .......

[FrenchieCat]

174. Yes, I have disagreed with Obama.....although, I'm not sure what that has to do with Turley....

As for you and your stereotyping posse, I have also disagreed with y'all.

[ShortnFiery]

178. When? Name ONCE re: an important issue?

p.s. I'm not picking on you personally FC, but the large numbers of seemingly "adoring fans" of ONE HUMAN MAN.

We don't put our faith in elected officials NO MATTER how affable and intelligent they prove themselves to be.

As citizens we must be ever vigilant and DEMAND that our representatives serve "the people" vice "their blessed careers" first.

Yes, even Obama, being a consummate politician must be PUSHED into doing "uncomfortable actions" ... WE MUST FORCE our officials to fully investigate and prosecute not only for our Nation's Integrity but also for the welfare of the entire World who look to us as "a model."

[stevenleser]

188. Frenchie and I both disagree with Obama on Gay Marriage

(we support gay marriage not just cicil unions) THat still has nothing to do with the fact that we have a problem with Turley's role in the Clinton impeachment.

(Frenchie, I hope you dont mind me speaking up for you here)

[FrenchieCat]

193. I disagree with his stance on this, but understand why it is what it is.....

and hope that he will change this in time.

[FrenchieCat]

192. I agree that we should let our voices be heard on issues for which we are passionate.....

And I believe that in this case, this President listens.....
so there is a great reason why organizing and speaking up
is a good thing....

and I've disagreed with some of Barack Obama's decisions certainly......
I disagreed with his FISA vote during the campaign,
Think he should have picked someone less divisive than Warren to do his inauguration prayer,
Didn't love his selection of Geithner, Summers, Tom Daschle,
Wished that his Stimulus plan would have contained more infrastructure programs,
and don't quite understand his backing of Specter yet.
Also, I Didn't like his response to the New York Flyover,
find timidity in his DADT actions to date,
and believe that the Health Care Plan should have a public option,
and Am praying that his Afghanistan strategy is the right one.

Otherwise, to date, I'm pretty satisfied.

But I handle my disappointments in a particular manner...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8300424&mesg_id=8300491

Because that is how I do my activism; I write......to the Whitehouse,
to a large portion of the media, to my congressfolks,
as well as the congressfolks of others.

Writing at the DU is only a small part of what I do, in fact.


And there are good reasons why I don't bitch and Moan here at DU about Pres. Obama,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8300424&mesg_id=8300424
and I'm thankful that I don't have to be just like those who do in order to make the cut.


In fact, I dare to say that I'm one of the folks here at DU who some folks love to vilify.
In some cases, I have been bullied, discussed and talked about at other websites, etc.... because They'd prefer that I shit on this President like they do, rather than show strong support.

But this is not new. Before that, I was hated because I didn't support John Edwards and expressed it with lotsa of facts, and before that because I supported General Wes Clark, and although I have been an active member here for going on 6 years, I'm still accused of everything from being a paid operative to being an unthinking Obamabot....neither which is true.

In otherwords, some folks want me to be just like them,
and because I'm not, they accuse me of a lot of hateful things.
What they fail to realize is that their approach towards me, that usually gets personal,
is more hateful and intellectually dishonest than anything I have ever posted or discussed about them...but yet they believe themselves superior to me enough to be my judges.

[ShortnFiery]

199. With respect, you don't disagree with OBAMA *at all* - in fact you are constantly making

excuses for him. This is not judging you personally, merely noting a pattern of behavior.

Sorry, IMO, you have not provided an example when you automatically follow up ... "but I understand."

No, HE works for US. I don't have to understand ... and I don't TRUST any politican.

That's where we differ - I'm NOT superior to you at all. I'm merely suggesting that you tend to be on the opposite side of the continuum to myself. I default to "skeptical" whereas you default to "trusting."

I regret it's going to be one hell of a let down when you finally realize that Obama is another DLC corporate Democrat who will mostly maintain the status quo. Perhaps, like many here, you will deny "the obvious" and continue to be satisfied ... I'm dis-satisfied but believe that the let down will be much less harsh in the near future for my type. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

211. Thanks for your attention on me in this discussion on Turley......

Far as I'm concerned you and I are done on this.

I can disagree with anyone, and yet still understand and even respect why they believe what they do....because unlike you, I don't prescribe that everyone should think as I do,
just because I have ordered it.
And that is perhaps the biggest difference between you and me....
I can agree to disagree, and I can understand why one might think as you do....
while you want to tell me about myself and about the future (that you know about as much as I do, which is not much) and advise me that I will regret whatever I believe now.

so yes, although you might protest otherwise, you are holding yourself up as superior.
The proof is in this thread, where you challenge everyone, and do not respect anyone's view
as you force your own take as fact rather than as your opinion.

[stevenleser]

186. Yep, happened to me too Frenchie. I agree with what Turley is saying, I just cannot stand him

the same folks who cannot understand that this is your position also do not get that it is mine.

[HopeOverFear]

30. He used to bother me, until I shut him off.

[frylock]

42. torture used to bother me, till i shoved my head in the sand..

i heart dems!!!!

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[frylock]

119. i don't know jack about shit..

but what i do know is for you to call me arrogant because i responded to your bullshit one-sentence snark is fuckin hilarious to be sure.

[avaistheone1]

46. I am sure many shut off their conscience and they shut off their TVs

as you did.

[ShortnFiery]

33. Yes, the canary in the coal mine who has the courage to speak The Truth ... albeit INCONVENIENT.

I would be honored to meet and/or take a course from this honorable man and Constitutional scholar. :thumbsup:

[jefferson_dem]

34. Turley as a one-tirck-pony... Yes...

I went googling and...no you're not alone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8351402

Well, two-trick-pony - don't forget his clarion call to Impeach The Big Dawg.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Yes, and when FOX news repeats "an perceived injustice" the rest of the M$M and US jump.

As high as they say. Hypocrites?

This is SMELLING like an orchestrated campaign to degrade an honorable Professor and Constitutional Law Scholar.

I call FOUL! :nuke:

[ShortnFiery]

44. He was right then and he's right now.

Big Dawg should have resigned and we may have enjoyed EIGHT years of peace and prosperity under President Gore. :(

[frylock]

105. you went a googling and came up with a link to DU?!

for fucking real??! yeah - there's a SHITLOAD of folks around here that don't like to hear what Turley's saying. wowee. moreover, Clinton fucking LIED. imagine a constitutional law expert following the letter of the law. you can make the argument that Clinton never should have had to testify about a blowjob, and on that i would agree. but Clinton didn't do himself any favors by LYING out his ass.

[AtomicKitten]

38. Turley is dead-on right about this. n/t

[zipplewrath]

45. I tend to agree

I don't want to call it a whine. More like a narrowing of focus. And it has taken on an air of "lobbying". Not exactly something I'm looking for in a commentator. He seems to want to "threaten" Obama and others with some sort of "guilt by association" or something. Look, I want to pressure the administration too, but let's remember who did these things, and who stopped them. I'd almost rather hear him expand his point to the larger point of politicians "getting off" of criminal actions because they hold political offices. You can go back through many Washington scandles and find that alot of people, especially elected people, are never convicted because they are now out of office.

[ShortnFiery]

53. Between Turley, Rachael, Olbermann and Ed Schultz = that's the ONLY M$M on TV Cable fighting

for "the rule of law" and the rights of the NON-Investor Classes in America.

Instead of tearing down our own, perhaps we all should be joining in the chorus?

[zipplewrath]

57. Being ineffective

I think the over all point of the observation is that he is preaching to the choir, and even the choir isn't all that thrilled. Hammering and narrowing the point isn't going to widen the message. Believe me, I can understand his passion. I can hardly discuss the issue without blowing up. That doesn't mean I'm being effective.

[ShortnFiery]

66. OMG! We are in a desert of corporate media,

BUT you can BITCH in an open forum where people who "are not on our side" (right-wingnuts) can prey.

If you truly care about having OUR progressive/liberal issues aired in a better manner, how about you WRITE MSNBC instead of airing "personality" issues in open forum.

Hey, I don't care for a number of "liberal personalities" but KNOW they are on "my team" (support of the American Wage Slave).

In other words, you have to know when to HOLD EM (write Keith or Rachael) instead of being what I sometimes agree with the GOP = an elitist.

We are a team of sorts albeit we have MANY opinions. If we don't tear each other apart, we just may keep KO, Rachael and Ed Schultz on Cable TV long enough to inspire more of the "sleeping unwashed masses."

[zipplewrath]

90. Hardly call it bitching

I think if you look over what I wrote, it was far from bitching. It was a fairly honest assessment, and I even tried to take some of the more negative comments out, replacing the assertion of "whining".

This is a place for people of a relatively like mind to discuss points of view, including the message and its presentation. I don't see it as a place where we have to "hold" our opinions and observations. That doesn't make me an elitist. And I hardly "tore" anyone appart. Constructive criticism is useful.

If all you want is to hear cheerleaders, I think you may be in the wrong forum.

[ShortnFiery]

94. Oh please, this is so small. There's some people who wish that the Professor Turley

tapped danced better on M$NBC. We're DAMN LUCKY that we have both KO and Rachael as a venue but you want to analyze personalities.

Sorry, IMO, that's elitist and why SOME of my "democratic acquaintances" tend to work against the team only to show off their PREFERENCES toward "style" and "entertainment factors" linked to personality. :(

[zipplewrath]

96. Actually, message

Again, I think if you read what I wrote, it's more about message. He is narrowing his, and shifting focus away from the perpetrators. I think that is a mistake of message.

[ShortnFiery]

100. Perhaps they should dispense with all the "B" team and just tag someone say ...

like yourself? :shrug:

[zipplewrath]

198. More variety

A common problem with the whole 24 hour news channel format is a lack of content. It's why you saw the whole Monica-gate fiasco hammered the way it was. It is easier to basically do the same thing over and over again than find new, original, content. And part of that develops in the manner we see here where a single commentator is brought on over and over again basically because he is available, willing, and experienced. Some guys can pull it off to some extent. I think what we're seeing here is that Turley is having trouble doing that. Maybe it's passion, maybe it's the producers not giving him a wider role. Who knows. But the end result is what we're seeing. I guess I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging the problem here in this format.

[Spazito]

56. I find the way he phrases some of his points, to infer it is up to President Obama...

to investigate and prosecute the criminals when he KNOWS it is Congress who holds hearings and it is the DOJ who prosecutes and the DOJ is INDEPENDENT from the White House, to be deliberately misleading and reduces his credibility, imo. An example of Turley 'phrasing':

"In many ways, what Obama did today may be just simply shifting the blame to Holder so that he can be the fall guy because if he defines this solely as whether lawyers will be investigated, he's very likely to find a legal reason not to do it."

Link to video where the Turley quote is from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=300671

(Starts around the 4:00 minute mark)


I much prefer hearing from John Dean on this issue.

[Duer 157099]

58. Could not DISagree more

He's one of the few voices that won't relent, and for good reason.

I hope he ups his effort by 10.

[jenmito]

64. He obviously doesn't understand that it's not Obama's job to prosecute Bush

et al. It's the DOJ's job and the president is not supposed to politicize the process. Turly, Maddow, and Olbermann just want the satisfaction of hearing the words come out of Obama's mouth no matter how inappropriate that would be.

[jenmito]

61. "One-note Johnny" REALLY gets on my nerves. He's always disappointed in Obama about

SOMETHING. He actually thought Obama should've declared in his last press conference that Bush was criminally responsible for torture (not his exact words but close). Doesn't he get it that it's not UP to Obama to be the prosecutor and that if he DID say that, it would undermine Holder and everything HE'S working on? The president is not supposed to politicize these things. That's what the Justice Dept. is for.

[avaistheone1]

65. He is just fine playing that "one-note" by me. It is an important one

and I hope Turley plays it loud and clear. I am sure Turley has a better understanding than any of us of the proper relationship of the President with the AG. His credentials certainly beat any of ours.

[ShortnFiery]

68. Yes, the venom of this thread gives me pause.

Hamlette et. al., methinks thou protesth too much. :evilgrin:

[jenmito]

71. That doesn't even make sense.

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

72. I understand how you wouldn't understand given that you are a participant in the personality smear..

:(

[jenmito]

74. Huh? "Venom"? "Protest too much"??? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

77. Why don't cha sleep on it and get back with me?

;) :hi:

[jenmito]

81. Why don't YOU try to explain what you mean?

[ShortnFiery]

83. Tie the comment to "Hamlet" - the play - then by jove, I think you've got it. :-) nt

[jenmito]

85. I'm done trying to reason with you on this subject.

[Orsino]

200. Listening to some DUers here...

...is apparently just like torture. :eyes:

[jenmito]

69. Not by me. He sure doesn't SEEM to know that the president is supposed to be

separate from the DOJ and if Obama had pre-empted the DOJ's findings by stating that Bush DID commit war crimes, that would be totally inappropriate.

[ShortnFiery]

70. OBAMA can bring this to LIGHT albeit it is the DOJ who's SWORN to investigate and prosecute.

Obama could be more vocal about this travesty. We need it NOW!

BTW did ya catch this little gem? Done in OUR NAME. :grr:

US interrogators may have killed dozens, human rights researcher and rights group say

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/06/us-interrogators-killed-dozens-human-rights-researcher-and-rights-group-say/#tab=home&url=home.php

This will be the albatross around OBAMA's political neck if he doesn't *encourage* the DOJ to do their damn job. :nuke:

[jenmito]

73. He doesn't bring it to light by declaring Bush guilty! He DID bring it to light by

saying waterboarding IS torture. And Gibbs said as recently as today that nobody is above the law. The DOJ is where this will be prosecuted. And Obama gave the green light.

[ShortnFiery]

79. The right-wing tactic of equivocation is unbecoming someone of such seemingly

high intelligence. You really don't wish me to waste the bandwidth on this smite, do ya? :shrug:

[jenmito]

80. Who is equivocating?

[ShortnFiery]

82. If Obama - NOT BUSH - pushes the DOJ, the TORTURE issue will be pushed forward instead

of "covered up."

If Obama does NOT push this issue, the NEXT TIME that the GOP owns the Executive Branch, we will have a full blown Oligarchy - A Corporate United States of America where the GOP will be in permanent control of our Government, to include reneging of all our Civil Liberties.

I'm talking about THE ROACHES who will scamper back out of the woodwork, like they did now from Watergate and Iran-Contra. However, this time we will not have "a hope" of remaining a Democratic Republic IF WE DON'T investigate and prosecute NOW.

OBAMA CAN .... MUST MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

We can't let this go - THE WORLD is watching.

Obama will OWN the "torture" blight on our Nation IF he does not ensure JUSTICE.

It will be all on OBAMA (not Bush) if he FAILS to ensure that this is investigated and prosecuted fully.

[jenmito]

84. And Obama does NOT go about that by declaring Bush already guilty in a press conference.

Why do you think that Obama saying waterboarding is torture and nobody is above the law is covering anything up? Why can't you see it as letting HOLDER do his job and Obama not standing in his way??

[ShortnFiery]

91. Obfuscation is not becoming of anyone. If Obama pays attention to the ISSUE, it will be fully ...

investigated and prosecuted. If Obama continues with what is seemingly a cross between "a whitewash" and "a cover-up" then OBAMA OWNS TORTURE linked to our beloved Nation.

We need to continue to encourage both our legislators and Obama to PUSH THIS FORWARD. :thumbsup:

[jenmito]

97. Obama is not obfuscating anything. But keep thinking that way JUST because he

didn't use the word you wanted him to use in his press conference.

[ShortnFiery]

102. No Obama, your behavior of modifying the topic. Obama CAN push this and you know it.

[jenmito]

133. And you think that "pushing it" means answering a reporter that Bush is guilty of war crimes.

That's just what Turley thinks, too. That since he wouldn't say it then and there Obama is against prosecution. Ridiculous.

[ShortnFiery]

135. Democracy is not "neat" ... The People have to keep PUSHING our leaders to do what's right.

Sorry, but this isn't a finishing school. Further, if Obama does NOT act, he will be tied into these horrific war crimes.

BTW Obama is "OUR President" he serves US. :eyes:

[jenmito]

139. You still don't get it and obviously I'm not going to be able to explain it to you, so I'm done. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

143. Yes, you must have "special knowledge" because you will not focus on what I suggest.

:(

[jenmito]

145. I will leave you with this: You KEEP repeating this same line...

"This will COME BACK to Obama if he does not ensure that TORTURE "in our name" is not fully investigated and prosecuted." And where do you get the idea that he WON'T have the Bush admin. investigated and prosecuted? You apparently get it from the fact that Obama refused to SAY that Bush is guilty of war crimes. Turley gets that same idea just because he didn't say that at the press conference. I'M saying he COULDN'T say it there since it's the DOJ'S job to do. Obama is doing it the right way. If he used the words you and Turley and Maddow wanted, he'd be in big trouble for pre-judging the outcome of the DOJ'S investigation. And that's all I'm going to say. You're talking right past me.

[ShortnFiery]

165. Obama won't investigate and prosecute UNLESS we make him. Why?

Because he's a highly intelligent politician. IF WE THE PEOPLE don't demand this, it won't happen. Obama will be equally as guilty IF he doesn't follow through.

I don't TRUST ANY POLITICIAN to know when to do what is morally sound.

That is why we must not be silent.

I'm so glad we had this little chat. Have a nice evening. :hi:

[ChiciB1]

75. For Me, Turley Is Absolutely Correct... Unfortunately He Has To KEEP

talking about it because it seems people don't actually CARE about Constitutional Law. I see it all the time, even here at DU!

If you have the "facts" to support your argument, then WHY should he not speak out?? Seems very few are even paying much attention anyway, which is almost hard to believe as far as I'm concerned. But I won't argue the issue anymore, if those in power don't want anything to happen IT WON'T!

I agree with Turley, but I feel the American people just don't care that much anymore. You can disagree with me, it's you're choice, but it's the way I feel and won't get drawn into a heated discussion anymore. It's really USELESS!

[firedupdem]

86. Yep...I turn him off too. n/t

[Realtalk]

88. No, I understand. He can spit a lot of bullsh*t when he wants.

[scrappydo]

89. Turley drives me crazy, too.....

I just hit the mute button when he comes on. Torture is definitely a crime that should be prosecuted IMO. However, it is like Turley plays the same record over and over and over, again. There are many voices out there that are championing torture prosecutions. Other guests on KO and Rachel would be welcome as opposed to Turley's continuous drone. Turley is not the only constitutional expert in this country - I would like to hear other perspectives on the torture topic.

[ShortnFiery]

93. Do you also *mute your TV* when it's uncovered that DOZENS of prisoners were tortured to death?

In Our Name?



What does the WAR CRIME torure have to do with Turley's personality?

He may not like yours either? :shrug:

[scrappydo]

215. War crime is war crime...and I did say I was against torture...

and support any prosecutions that hopefully come out of this whole situation. HOWEVER, I cannot STAND Turley!!! I do not have to be FOR Turley to support torture proscections. Turley is like listening to a broken record.....or like listening to someone scratching their nails on a blackboard. Some of you bloggers go so overboard in one direction, and in case you did not get it the first time, I support torture prosecutions; I simply do not like Turley. What do you not understand about that?

[lunatica]

98. What we want is for Turley to drive THEM crazy

I'm grateful they have him on often. He's one of the very few who stays on message. Do you think that without him we'd be hearing very much about the torture and accountability. Or would you rather he shut up and no one talk about it? I like that he's like a pit bull with a bone.

[ShortnFiery]

101. Bingo! And given the repeated use of the right-wing meme "whining" I think they are

*very* upset and launching a smear campaign on the messengers.

However, I regret that some people who don't care much for Turley's personality (he's not the most dynamic of speakers), are unwittingly joining in with the right wingnuts. :(

[lunatica]

111. Sometimes the left really puzzles me. They want to see Republican criminals pay

but when someone like Turley goes after the criminals they just groan and moan about it. Who else is out there relentlessly talking about the violation to the Constitution? No one. If it weren't for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Johnathan Turley we wouldn't hear anything at all about this issue.

[ShortnFiery]

113. This isn't coming from us lefties. It's from those who want a more colorful messenger.

:shrug:

[lunatica]

99. dupe

[vaberella]

103. I had a whole thread dedicated to that baffoon before.

He's nauseating and hateful. I can't stand him.

[ShortnFiery]

104. What the ..... FOX!

[vaberella]

114. Hahahaha...

Look i support prosecution. What I can't stand is his needless and continuous attack on President O...the man has NEVER said anything positive about O. When O clearly said it's in Eric Holder's ball park. Turley actually said O passing the buck by handing it to Holder when Holder was supposed to take care of it, anyway. This was in another discussion not this one which I have yet to see. He just pisses me off normally and it's nauseating.

[ShortnFiery]

115. "his needless and continuous attack on President O" is in YOUR/THEIR mind. He's pushing Obama to

do HIS DAMN JOB by pushing this forward.

Obama has not f**ked this up BUT if he waits and allows it to be either whitewashed and/or covered-up, then OBAMA WILL BE PAINTED as aiding and abetting those who actually wrote and conducted torture.

Turley is PUSHING The Obama Administration members to BE TRUE to their sworn oath to the Constitution.

[vaberella]

116. Actually Turley has said otherwise...

To Turley O has fucked up...that's the point. And it's not in my mind. I've been listening to this guy since September---nothing positive. Plus he didn't impress me much with when i found out his history with Clinton.

[frylock]

122. clinton didn't impress me much when i found out his history with clinton

[ShortnFiery]

129. Vabrella vs. Professor Turley?

HA! Indeed. :-) :hi:

[MasonJar]

106. Johnathan Turley is a patriot, who cares about his country and is an

expert on the topic of Constitutional Law. Excuse me if I stand by having him on tv until someone in DC listens. Turley for the Supreme Court is my cry!!!!!

[lunatica]

108. I trust him, which is saying a lot and I believe him which says even more

I think he knows what he's talking about and I'm glad to hear him talking about it constantly. Without him the torture message would have been dropped long ago.

[madamesilverspurs]

112. My favorite "Turley Moment" --

I think it was on Hardball, and Turley was seated next to Buchanan. A couple of times it looked as though Turley was straining to keep from backhanding Pat for being so "buchananish."

[Zodiak]

117. Something I have learned over the years here and elsewhere

1. Any criticism that contains the words "whine" or "whiner" is rather thin and unsubstantive (and often speculative).

2. Any criticism that asserts that someone is "just in it for the attention" or "just likes to hear themselves talk" is also thin and unsubstantive, and definitely speculative.

3. Any criticism that includes "know-it-all" or "driven by ego" is also thin and unsubstantive, and also speculative.

4. All of the aforementioned criticisms are ALWAYS launched at the left from the right. All of these cricisms are almost always launched in place of discussing issues.

So I suppose if I were to follow these kinds of criticisms, we are to not like Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, Code Pink, Howard Dean, Paul Krugman, and now Johnathan Turley. Of course, I do not subscribe to such criticisms, and I find that the use of them often indicates that I should support that person a little more.

Now when you have an actual issue-driven point to make, go for it, but in the absence of said point, this sure does feel like a typical smear-job on someone perceived as "too left" for today's Democratic establishment.

[glitch]

142. Excellent post, deserves its own thread. nt

[bear425]

144. I think I love you just as much as I love

Jonathon Turley - which is a lot.

:hi:

[frylock]

120. if turley were on the TV railing against bush and gonzales..

you people would be jocking him like he was Bill fucking Clinton. this place is a fucking joke anymore.

[Hamlette]

132. I consider that he is railing about Bush and Gonzales

I do not see his attacks as attacks on Obama and the current administration AT ALL.

I would think that he too would agree that we need an investigation first.

I'm a lawyer. I've done hundreds, probably thousands, of criminal trials as a defense attorney. I look at the evidence here and can't help but think these people could very well walk from a jury trial. Flame on, but when you do, tell me how many criminal trials you have done first.

I'm sure Turley has done hundreds too (well, actullly I don't know) and I was not a Clinton fan (to say the least) but Turley's opinion on Clinton was bullshit. What he did was not impeachable. Period. Hate him, love him, the impeachment was a coup attempt by the right wing thugs and Turley was the head cheerleader. I am not prepared to accept his opinion as fact and I hate how he talks down to all of us.

[frylock]

140. i agree abut clinton's impeachment..

and i've stated repeatedly that Clinton shouldn't have been on the stand over a very personal matter. but Clinton didn't do himself, or the Dems, any favors by LYING.

[Hamlette]

154. I agree 100%. He pissed away his whole second term

for no good reason. I was outraged. But I was more outraged, as time went on, by the right who did not treat him fairly. And every night Turley was on the TV saying how we absolutely must impeach Clinton. Because he lied about sex. Who hasn't.

BUT, in all honestly, the GOP was insane and trying to grab power so they could rip off the US treasury. They had to wait a couple of years to do it. Waa waa.

[stevenleser]

159. Yes, Turley is too damaged goods because of that. I have no interest in listening to him

I am not interested in any jerks who tried to impeach Clinton for not wanting the world to know he got a blowjob from a consenting adult.

[ShortnFiery]

167. and it's all about you? I don't think Turley's personality is as important as WHAT you DON'T

want to hear. I think people would love to forget that OUR GOVERNMENT TORTURED and MURDERED people *in our name.*

The World Community most certainly NOT forget and for all of his IQ and charm, Obama can not make up for this through either a whitewash nor an orchestrated cover-up.

You don't dig the message, that's the RUB. :-)

[stevenleser]

169. Right, because I am the only one who feels this way...

Sure I am voicing my opinion, but clearly many others feel this way. On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is the worst thing someone could say that would invalidate everything else they would say (like holocaust denial, for instance), someone who called for Clinton's impeachment is at least an '8' for me. Folks who were for that have nothing to say that would interest me.

I am actually in favor of prosecution. But I am not interested the least in having this idiot on my side.

[ShortnFiery]

170. "this idiot" has forgotten more about Constitutional Law than you and I know combined +.

Perhaps you just HATE to take "a look inward?"

I wonder if you don't dislike Turley and label him "an idiot" mainly because you don't want to BELIEVE that it was some of OUR LEADERS who ARE "War Criminals." :shrug:

[stevenleser]

175. It really doesnt matter how much he ever learned. He cannot apply it properly.

He has no credibility with me and many others, nor should he. The use of impeachment against Clinton for a consensual blowjob is unacceptable.

But dont take my word for it, since you like authoritative sources, take the word of these law professors, all several hundred of them:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/petit1.htm#Letter

[ShortnFiery]

177. Says you. Turley applies his knowledge "spot on" but you do not want to accept the awesome

responsibility that We the People have - to hold our elected officials accountable.

We must MAKE Obama, et. al., within the Executive Branch do their damn jobs. Nobody wants to correct an injustice within one's own Nation but it MUST be done lest we will forever more be considered *the nation who tortures.*

We have NO moral standing in the World if we do not FORCE our elected officials to do their damn jobs. They are OUR representatives and if we remain silent, the stain of TORTURE will also be "a part of who we are."

I'm NOT going to accept that label and will do everything legally possible to make our leaders OWN UP TO their sworn duty to OUR Constitution. :patriot:

You can cower in the corner and make excuses for Obama, I will NOT.

[stevenleser]

184. Says me and 430 law professors. Turley doesnt know what he is talking about re: The Constitution n/t

[Binka]

195. Aaahh Little stevenleser Is Having A Melt Down

After raising four children I recognize the symptoms. Poor dear where is his Mommy?

[stevenleser]

210. LOL, I'm a grandparent dearie, and no, this is not a meltdown.

Please tell me you didnt treat your children like they were "melting down" when they were winning arguments too.

[Binka]

214. My Children Are Not Delusional

They understand putting down the shovel when the hole is getting too big. You on the other hand don't seem able to grasp that concept.

[Gregorian]

125. I look forward to him, like none other. I guess you could say the Constitution is a boring read.

We wouldn't have to sound like a broken record if the judicial system in this country, in combination with the media, were working.

In lieu of an organized, educated, vigilant, nation of citizens, we get a few pros who are signaling the damage that is being done.

Hey, it's like telling a smoker to stop. I only quit when I wanted to feel good, and be healthy.

[ksoze]

126. He's up next on the "Ed Show" - just for you!

[bvar22]

127. MORE Turley,

Less accommodation of War Criminals.

The ACLU has pointed out that the Statute of Limitations will expire this year on some of the worst abuses.
There is a need to appoint an Independent Prosecutor immediately !
The more the White House delays, the stronger the perception that they are protecting War Criminals.

I have NO respect for those who whine about Turley's "style".
This is a classic case of attacking the messenger.

[NorthCarolina]

128. Not me, I want Bush war crimes talked about all the time until it becomes

impossible for Obama to ignore it any longer. Letting this go, to me, would be every bit as criminal as those that perpetrated the crimes. Turley speaks for me.

[4lbs]

130. Why not bring on Vincent Bugliosi to talk about it?

You know, the guy who wrote this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

[Dinger]

131. Turley Fucking ROCKS!

:patriot: :headbang:

[EVDebs]

134. You're right. NOTHING will happen w/o an investigation.

And the funny thing is Turley doesn't want to have Sen Leahy's 'Truth Commission' investigations, which will bring this all out into the open.

[ShortnFiery]

136. Hello?!? "Truth Commission" is another term for "Whitewash" = we need INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

The Justice Department can NOT investigate itself.

[flyarm]

189. oh you mean like the 9/11 white wash commission??????????? yeah thought so!! eom

[OwnedByFerrets]

138. It needs to be repeated day after day after day....

until something is done. I LOVE that someone has the guts to speak the truth.

[BlooInBloo]

146. I was mostly with him until he called Obama a war criminal...

and then later I found out he was gung-ho about the Clinton impeachment.

Now, while he's certainly correct about the need for investigations/prosecutions, it seems to me he's more interested in using that as a reason to whine about Obama. If it weren't that, it'd be something else.

[CTLawGuy]

197. he called Obama a war criminal

if that's true I'm done with him (Turley).

[spanone]

149. i'm glad to have him out there repeating his charges....over and over and over and over

[leftofthedial]

150. yeah, and those damned Jews who whined about the Holocaust

and those damned POWs who whined about being tortured by the Japanese and those damned women who whined about the witch hunts and . . .

what is it about "war crime" you don't get? What other issue do you want him to address? Michelle's new handbag?

[Hamlette]

153. I know, this is EXACTLY like the Holocaust.

whatever dude

[leftofthedial]

155. it most certainly IS exactly like the start of the "government"

that led to the Holocaust.

head, meet sand dude.


(also, "exactly" is a distortion)

[TheKentuckian]

152. One voice can be written off easily

Many makes a point.

Turley comes across as more than a bit smug and sometimes condescending in his tone. The point here is not that everyone just doesn't want to hear nasty things or whatever people are claiming but rather that the messenger is causing some to tune out. This effect will be MORE pronounced among the less than/unconvinced.

Turley may be right and determined but that doesn't mean people will be receptive.

I wish people would acknowledge that messenger matters equally or even more so than message. Just because YOU care more about the message than the person delivering it that everyone that needs to be is or even that those that agree with the message don't wear thin on the sanctimony.

[ShortnFiery]

166. Yeah, "please prosecute torture" MUST be wrapped in a pretty package.

Could we, as an "enlightened populace" be any more superficial? :thumbsdown:

[TheKentuckian]

205. If by pretty you mean appealing then that would be obvious

Ideas must be sold. The polling indicates that a better sales job must be done. Life should have taught all of us by now that being right isn't enough.

I'm not saying that is how it should be, I'm saying that is how it is and how it has been maybe how it always has been.
"Don't shoot the messenger" is not a new expression. You accomplish things when you marry message with the right messenger. In fact, I could make the case that in American politics messenger means MORE than message.
You have to play the hand you're dealt not the one you'd like.

[rustydog]

156. I can't disagree more. The only arguement is torture is a war crime

That is why the GOP and their apologists are saying enhanced interrogations garnered usable intelligence that stopped attacks.

Shit, let's go shoot every child molester in the head then and argue our crime served a better good because it saved future children from molestation. the arguement doesn't hold water. Illegal is illegal is illegal no matter if you call it Enhanced Interogation and you have a post-dated attorney opinion saying it is illegal and you destroy torture tapes that predate the post-dated "Legal Opinion."

These bastards committed war crimes and that is the only arguement we need to put forth.

[stillcool]

158. My husband turns him off too..

However...anyone who is pushing this issue on the tv..regardless of how they frame it, is a plus for me. If Obama is the only person they go after..oh well. Would be nice if every person here that complains about Obama, also emails or phones their representatives, and the Attorney General..but I won't hold my breath.

[Atticus]

160. "Same whine", eh?

Well,of course, you are quite right, old boy!(girl?)
All decent people---like us---absolutely abhor this torture business. It's just all so crude, vulgar and---messy. But, this Turley chap is acting as though this single issue is a permanent stain on our collective national reputation. Can you imagine?
Of course, we can add this to our long list of "Things to look into---some day." Would you position it ahead of or behind whether Laura REALLY designed the Oval Office carpet?
Hm-m-m?

[flyarm]

162. I disagree, I do not think it can be said enough! Are we or are we not a Nation predicated

on the rule of law??

Are we or are we not, if we are not then stop the rest of the bullshit..close the congress down and lets just be a damn banana republic..who is kidding who here?????????

If someone doesn;t give a shit get out of the way for the grown ups..I will hold all of the sob's accountable, if this congress lets these criminal fuckers off! And none of them will ever get another day's work from me nor another damn dime and I will make sure everyone i know holds then accountable as well!

Turley can't say it enough for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! since he is the only damn one saying what everyone in this country should be saying! Shame on anyone who isn't screaming what Turley is saying!

Why the hell is the Op not worried about.. say a simple piece of whinning..like say ..the CONSTITUTION??????????

What a disgrace that anyone would be bitching about someone who gives a rats ass about the CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

KEEP IT UP TURLEY...I LOVE YOU MAN FOR FIGHTING FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO ALL OF US!!!
NO ONE GETS A FREE RIDE ON BREAKING OUR LAWS AND OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!

Now OP go back and talk about a dog or arms..ipods or clothes....ok..that is about your speed it seems!

[bluethruandthru]

164. I love Jonathan Turley!

I think he's very interesting to listen to and he knows his stuff. I wouldn't mind him on the Supreme Court.

[Tarheel_Dem]

172. I agree 110%. I have pretty much tuned out "progressive" media, with

the exception of Countdown. And I've written Keith about variety. There must be other constitutional scholars out there. I'm assuming Turley is under contract to MSNBC, but it sure would be nice to have some fresher faces, and varying points of view.

[quiller4]

212. There are other constitutional scholars out there. "Scholar"

is not a term I'd use to describe Turley. He is a publicity hound but he is wrong more often than right in his analysis of constitutional case law.

[flyarm]

173. well op you better try to shut down the ACLU as well..because they won't shut up either!!!

Because that must be your job shutting up anyone who shows dissension to what is going on ..right????????


I guess the ACLU is a pain in the ass to the op as well..eh??????
Can't have anyone being held accountable ..because the OP says it is annoying to him to have to hear anyone discuss our laws being broken....and our constitution being shredded!!! To much bother for the OP to listen to.......:mad: :wtf:

thanks to KPETE for this thread!!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3864759

Source: ACLU

Justice Department Ethics Report No Substitute For Criminal Investigations (5/6/2009)

Top-To-Bottom Investigation Of Torture Program Necessary, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]
[phone]; [e-mail]

NEW YORK – According to news reports, a draft report from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility concludes that the lawyers who wrote the "torture memos" legally sanctioning illegal interrogation methods committed serious lapses of judgment but should not be prosecuted. The Washington Post reports that former Bush administration officials launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to get the Justice Department to soften the ethics report.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:

"Regardless of the findings from the Department of Justice ethics division, the ball is in Attorney General Holder's court. The attorney general should not be swayed by political considerations or by an inquiry that was intentionally neutered and limited in scope. Attorney General Holder has said that he intends to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead. The logical next step is to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate those who authorized the torture program, those who legally sanctioned it and those who implemented it. It would be a dangerous precedent to conclude that lawyers who played a critical role in an illegal program are immune from criminal investigations. No one is above the law."

The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

"Given the disturbing reports of pressure from Bush administration officials to water down this report, Congress must intervene and assert its oversight role. We cannot turn the page on the failed policies of the Bush administration when its lobbyists are attempting to rewrite history. This ethics review is only one piece of the puzzle. More than five years after the first disclosures of torture, it should concern all Americans that there is a 200-page draft government report on the role of three lawyers, but absolutely no Justice Department investigation of their clients – those top White House and CIA officials who asked for the opinions and reportedly made decisions on what torture tactics to use on which detainees. A top-to-bottom investigation is needed to examine not just those who authored these opinions but those who requested them and to determine whether these DOJ findings were watered down for political reasons. Congress can and must play an active role in that investigation."



Read more: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39524prs20090506.h...


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

oh and you better shut up emptywheel as welo because she is doing the job only Turley is doing..exposing the fucking war crimes..and the destruction of our constitution..wouldn;t want to bother the op with any of these facts though..it might cause too many brain farts for someone so introspective and respectful of our consitution!!!!!!!!!!:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

now to what emptywheel has to say..but first Op go read about those arms and the little doggie..wouldn't want to fill your little mind with any worthwhile facts!:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/05/dougie-feiths-little-shop-of-tortures/


Dougie Feith’s Little Shop of Tortures?
By: emptywheel Tuesday May 5, 2009 8:46 pm

I just happened to find Dougie Feith's responses to Questions for the Record the Senate Intelligence Committee asked him in 2003. They wanted to know how his little intelligence shop at DOD--the Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG)--bridged the line between intelligence and policy.

He said his little intelligence shop helped formulate policy on:

DoD response to the presence in Iraq of the al-Qaida affiliated Ansar al-Islam terrorist group.
DoD response to the presence in Iraq of al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his CB W network.
Helping to formulate requirements for the debriefings of al-Qaida fighters detained at Guantanamo and Bagram.
"Helping to formulate requirements for the debriefings of al-Qaida fighters?!?!?!?!"

What the hell does that mean? How do you formulate policy requirements for interrogations?

I don't know, really, but I wonder if it has something to do with this (from a psychiatrist advising on interrogations at Gitmo):

his is my opinion, even though they were giving information and some of it was useful, while we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between AI Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link between AI Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link, there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.



THESE ARE FUCKING WAR CRIMES..GET IT OP..WAR CRIMES..AND HOW MANY OF OUR SOLDIERS DIED FOR THIS BULLSHIT??????????????????????..BUT DON'T TEST YOUR LITTLE MIND WITH ANY OF THESE FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!! aND DON'T DARE READ THE latimes..NO DON'T FREAKING DARE EXHAUST YOUR SIMPLE LITTLE MIND

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-margulies30-2009apr30,0,3309097.story

Abu Zubaydah's suffering
Torture or not, a human being was shattered for life by actions that in no way reflect who we are as a people.
By Joseph Margulies
April 30, 2009

SNIP:

His name is Zayn al Abidin Mohamed Hussein, known to the world as Abu Zubaydah.



He was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. Because the Bush administration believed him to be a senior Al Qaeda operative, his detention and interrogation produced a fistful of firsts. As far as we can tell, he is the only prisoner in U.S. history whose interrogation was the subject of debate and direct authorization within the White House, and the first to disappear into a secret CIA "black site."

He was the first prisoner in the "war on terror" to experience the full gamut of ancient techniques adapted by the communists in Korea and, 50 years later, approved by the Justice Department in Washington. He was the first prisoner to have his interrogations captured on videotape -- a practice the CIA ended in late 2002. Two years later, the agency destroyed 90 videotapes of Abu Zubaydah's interrogations, which resulted in a criminal investigation of government officials connected with the program.

SNIP;

First, they beat him. As authorized by the Justice Department and confirmed by the Red Cross, they wrapped a collar around his neck and smashed him over and over against a wall. They forced his body into a tiny, pitch-dark box and left him for hours. They stripped him naked and suspended him from hooks in the ceiling. They kept him awake for days.

And they strapped him to an inverted board and poured water over his covered nose and mouth to "produce the sensation of suffocation and incipient panic." Eighty-three times. I leave it to others to debate whether we should call this torture. I am content with the self-evident truth that it was wrong.


But Abu Zubaydah, we now understand, was nothing like what the president believed. He was never Al Qaeda. The journalist Ron Suskind was the first to ask the right questions. In his 2006 book, "The One Percent Doctrine," he described Abu Zubaydah as a minor logistics man, a travel agent.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

180. The way I see it

is Turley keeps reverting back to the law, and he's right to do so. I listen carefully to him because he does update as events unfold. John Dean was on tonight and didn't Keith have on Ms. Karpinski recently? I think Turley is very closely following daily developments, and I appreciate his take.

[Umbral]

181. He doesn't bother me...

But I can understand how he could rub some pedants the wrong way.

[dkf]

182. Add me to the list...

I can only hear the same exact thing so many times for goodness sakes. Its overkill.

[ShortnFiery]

183. "overkill?"

Strange how you choose to use that word.

OVERKILL?

Like what WE did to *dozens* of detainees that were in our custody?

Ignoring the Geneva Conventions?

Torturing?

Murdering?

... OVERKILL, in our name. :(

Yes, why should we trouble our beautiful minds with the likes of WAR CRIMES which, if not investigated and prosecuted, will forever brand the United States of America as "The Haven for Sanctioned Torture and Murder" of all dissidents?

Perhaps we could have "contests" with China and Iran? :wow: :crazy:

[flyarm]

185. shhhhhhhh don't wake up those who like to keep their heads in the sand..

SHHHHHHHHHH..DON'T WAKE ANYONE UP TO THESE FACTS..IT WILL UPSET SOME HERE AT DU.. of course those of us who have paid attention all these years here at Du and have posted of screaming of these crimes..are supposed to ignore these crimes now!!!!!!!!!!!! Because some people become bored so easily, and just don't want to tax their little brains! After all small brains can only absorb so much , you know!

here is overkill!!..and Thank you ShortnFiery..for caring how our names have been stained with blood by the torture of those criminals in "our" government!! At least some people give a damn!!


Report: 98 Detainees Died in U.S Custody
By Jeralyn,
Via Raw Story, a human rights researcher says 98 detainees died in U.S. custody. Of them, he says 34 deaths were labeled homicides, and between 8 and 12 were tortured to death.

The researcher, John Sifton, worked for five years for Human Rights Watch. In a posting Tuesday, he documents myriad cases of detainees who died at the hands of their US interrogators. Some of the instances he cites are graphic.

Sifton's article on his report is at Daily Beast. It's based on a 2006 Human Rights First report and follow-up investigations. Sifton says:


A simple fact is being overlooked in the Bush-era torture scandal: the number of cases in which detainees have been tortured to death. Abuse did not only involve the high-profile cases of smashing detainees into plywood barriers (“walling”), confinement in coffin-like boxes with insects, sleep deprivation, cold, and waterboarding. To date approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death.

Sifton's 2005 report for HRW on torture deaths is here.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/05/20/afghanistan-killing-and-torture-us-predate-abu-ghraib

[Norrin Radd]

190. I imagine whenever he is on, it is some viewer's first time hearing about this.

[BigBearJohn]

196. Turley is one of the most intelligent men on t.v. today and you should be GRATEFUL a man of his

stature is speaking out for the rule of law. This is MAJOR.
I wish more people of stature were speaking out as eloquently
as he is.

Why don't you complain about someone who is really doing
damage to this country.

Your post has made me extremely angry. But I will try to
hold back in saying what I REALLY think.

[Hamlette]

201. why do you think he is so intelligent?

honestly. Is it his degree? His job? His position on torture?

I am not impressed by his "brilliance". I've not heard him say anything particularly insightful or smart. He read a law and interpreted it. Millions of us do that every day. Contrast him with John Dean, who I think is smarter. Dean gives a reasoned presentation each time he is on. He thinks and writes about this stuff. He doesn't just rant.

I'm also having problems, I admit, with the fact that I think Turley was so wrong on Clinton. He was on TV every night telling America how stupid we all were if the senate didn't convict Clinton and throw him out of office. I don't think what Clinton did was worthy of impeachment or conviction. It was stupid and I was pissed at him but who the hell hasn't lied about sex. Really. And what I was most pissed at was he opened the door to the crazies. I think it was a coup attempt by a bunch of right wing nut cases. And Turley argued that the constitution required we kick him out of office and if we didn't our country would fall apart because we would no longer be a country of laws and the world as we know it would end.

He lost credibility with me over that. And while I'll give him a second chance, and happen to agree with him here, his hysteria is beyond the pale and I feel like he's talking down to me.

[BigBearJohn]

213. Ok. I'll agree with you about his stance on Clinton. However, I don't think you are his target

audience. You are an accomplished attorney. I would assume that you already know the truth re: law.
During his campaign, Obama repeated himself incessantly. A simple and clear message, repeated often,
reaches the masses. Clinton wasn't perfect and neither is Turley. However, the media
minds at MSNBC, namely, Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews and Schultz, have him on for a very
good reason. Turley speaks to power -- and he is in a position to do so, in my opinion, eloquently
and succinctly. I enjoy listening to him. I don't feel like I am being talked down to. Granted,
you might feel this way because you are an accomplished attorney. But, I repeat, you are not his
target audience. Turley is calling a spade a spade. Bush and his minions broke the law. He deserves
to be thrown in jail, and Turley is brave enough to shout it to the rafters. If he offends a few
people, so be it. IT NEEDS TO BE SAID. And I thank GOD there is somebody of his stature to say it.


Truth doesn't need adornment, coloring or a special flavor. In my opinion, Turley speaks the truth.

So, if you don't like him, why don't you put together a video, together with your credentials, and
offer it up to the right parties at MSNBC? Maybe they will let YOU present YOUR side of the story.

But please don't knock the only legal guy we have on t.v. standing up to the eternal lies. If you
don't like him, then offer your services, PLEASE. We'd love to see you on t.v. on Keith's show.

[Pirate Smile]

202. I frequently turn him off also.

[TankLV]

203. We need M ORE of TURLEY and MORE TURLEYS!!!

Sorry if you repukes can't stand the heat for your WAR CRIMES...

[OnyxCollie]

204. He's gotten all uppity since he started dyeing his hair.

He's a star now.

He used to have a lot of grey. Then one day he was on Countdown or Rachel's show with these really dark eyebrows to match his hair and I was like, WTF?

[avaistheone1]

206. Obama dyes his hair now? Say it isn't so.

:sarcasm:

[Sugarcoated]

207. I don't know the long and winding history of Turley

and Clinton's stuff, but on torture the man knows his shit. On some weekend show he verbally pummeled Pat Buchanon so perfectly on this subject that even old Pat had to laugh.

[mod mom]

208. I like him and hope he continues until the administration decides to prosecute!

[Political Heretic]

209. I am for anyone who can get media airtime to say these were CRIMES that need PROSECUTED

I don't give a shit about all the silly debates about his character or past positions or tone or whatever.

And he NEEDS to say the same thing over and over again - as do we all - until someone fucking listens.