Rachel Maddow Destroys Obama on Lying to the American People

[balantz]

Run time: 07:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-4wPVwNEM   Posted on YouTube: May 23, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 09, 2009 By DU Member: balantz Views on DU: 4659

 

[Buzz Clik]

1. Rachel Maddow is not exactly an unbiased source on Obama.

She commented, "That bastard is already triangulating" on election night. With respect to Obama, she has her own agenda.

[GodlessBiker]

4. Who doesn't have their own agenda?

[Buzz Clik]

6. True journalists?

Good luck finding a true journalist.

I recognize that Maddow doesn't paint herself as unbiased; but, in this case, it's far beyond that.

[GodlessBiker]

9. All humans have their own agenda. You just can't get around it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. I disagree.

I have no agenda.

I am a leaf on the wind. Let the world do with me as it will.

[GodlessBiker]

49. LOL. That's a mighty fine agenda.

[balantz]

12. As do all corporate empires. n/t

[jgraz]

19. Name one person who's ever been a "True Journalist" ever

You're describing something that doesn't exist. All journalists have agendas. All of them. The best journalists have the strongest agendas.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, Rachel Maddow is not a journalist. She's PAID to have an opinion.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Just jump off on any tangent, pal. And whatever you do, don't read my post.

In my post, I stated quite clearly that true journalists are impossible to find and that Maddow doesn't pretend to be unbiased.

Care to go off on something else?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Buzz Clik]

30. Nice.

Did I push a button of yours? Good.

Rather than put you on my ignore list with a ton of your brainless cronies, I'll simply make a note of your little love message. I'm going to enjoy this.

[jgraz]

52. Yes, you pushed the "mindless apologist in the house" button

Let's see if I have your argument straight: Rachel's points have no merit because she is not an unbiased source. Except she's never pretended to be an unbiased source. Unlike true journalists. Who don't exist.


Wow, that was certainly worth all of our valuable time. Thank you for such an enlightening demonstration of your unique thought process.

[Usrename]

86. Well played.

Or, you could just call it the old "attack the messenger" ploy.

To some folks, a lying sos is not nearly as offensive as the person who points out the lying sos.

Go figure.

[bahrbearian]

104. Hey I don't agree with you

and I'm alot smarter than you.

[Tx4obama]

87. Tim Russert

was pretty good at not letting his personal opinion show.

We miss you Tim ;(

[jgraz]

95. AHAHAHAHAHA

No, stop. You're killing me.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3462

[JackRiddler]

110. Who?

[avaistheone1]

109. As long as Rachael keeps telling the truth she will continue to do fine.

I have a world of respect for Rachael. She is insightful and brave with the courage of her convictions. Rachael is one intelligent journalist who also has compassion.

[Captain Hilts]

10. She's supposed to be skeptical of ALL politicians. nt

[Buzz Clik]

17. The title of this thread suggests more than simple skepticism.

[Captain Hilts]

20. It's a discussion of a specific policy. nt

[Buzz Clik]

26. true

[leeroysphitz]

84. Why do you instantly deflect? Maddow is not the topic here and you know it.

The topic is whether or not a sitting president can make up the god damned law as he goes along.

I vote he or she can't.

Who gives a shit what Maddow said on election night?

[liberation]

100. Of course, you have a verified source for that, right?

Or are you just going to make stuff up because she dared say something critical of Obama?

[Stuart G]

2. Rachel talks about "preventive incarceration" that Obama

seems to support. She says that this is clearly new ground being dug, and really gives it to Obama for picking up the shovel

[Teaser]

3. boring

.

[camera obscura]

99. Thank you for this enlightening comment.

I don't know how this thread could have gone on without it!

[ananda]

5. You go girl!

Tell it like it is!

[stillrockin]

7. Go ahead, Rachel!

[FredStembottom]

8. Very, very sad.

Shocking. Disheartening.

Is Obama's relative inexperience before becoming Prez being taken advantage of? An established ruling class snowing-under a good man but isolated President.

Jimmy Carter II?

[ima_sinnic]

91. you might find some insights in this analysis

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/06/02/what-would-gorbachev-say-on-the-us-china-and-saudi-arabia/#comment-16218

[ClusterFreak]

13. Rachel reminds me of the frustrated jock parent....

...who watches their kid hit two home runs in a little league game, and then berates them later for striking out the third time up to bat.

:nopity:

[Captain Hilts]

15. It's about policy, not personality. nt

[ihavenobias]

46. Obama apologists remind me of Bush apologists. I can't stomach either.

Constructive criticism is critical. I raised and donated money for our President, but I didn't hand over my intellect to him.

When I think he's right, I praise him. When I think he's wrong, I don't pretend otherwise, and I appreciate those in the media that do the same.

[ClusterFreak]

58. So Rachel predicts that Obama's policies will play out....

...the same way as they did in a Tom Cruise movie and you call that constructive criticism?

I call it hysteria. How is her analogy any different than when conservative groups gleefully pointed to a fictional terrorist nuclear bomb blast in L.A. on the TV show "24" as a justification for the propogation of their own right agenda in dealing with real world terrorism? It's no different.

And notice how I didn't speak of you in dismissive terms.

[ihavenobias]

59. No, you spoke of a respected, beloved figure in dismissive terms.

Much to the annoyance of those that appreciate her (well informed) opinion. And if anything here is hyperbolic, it's your analogy.

;)

[ClusterFreak]

64. So I wasn't the "Obama apologist" you were referring to?

I see. You seem to have a passive-aggressive tendency in your approach to argument. I'm an "Obama apologist" yet you won't come right out and accuse me of it...and YOU are one of "those that appreciate her (well informed) opinion", yet you write only in terms of "those" who feel that way. YOU feel that way. Speak for yourself! You're not a spokeperson for anyone else but yourself. Like me, like the rest of us.

I watch Rachel, and I like her ballsiness...particularly in her recent interview of Colin Powell. She calls bullshit when she sees it, fine, but in my opinion - and it's only mine - she can have a shortsighted view at times. And then she loses me totally when she falls back on what seems to be her favorite crutch: sniggering sarcasm and Tween-like uptalking.

Having said all that, I'd still take one Rachel Maddow over a million Brian Williams' in terms of being gutsy enough to ask tough, penetrating questions. But as has been said of so many, her greatest strength can also be her greatest weakness. I just wish she'd take a wait and see approach more often, especially when it comes to this president, instead of that of a reflexive predictor of doom and gloom. But it's in her DNA I guess...."talk me down" seems to be more than just a gimmick for a show segment, it seems to be at the core of her being. In a lot of cases it's a manifest lack of faith, as I see it. In the space of about one year she's gone from grooving on camera to Stevie Wonder's "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" around the time of Obama's stadium speech in Denver, to saying stuff like 'even George Bush didn't do that'.

And so, I made my 'little league' analogy. It should be about the big picture, and it takes time for the big picture to emerge. A lot more than 4 and a half months.

As for my "24" analogy, I stand by it.



:-)

[ihavenobias]

78. Yes and no.

I actually wasn't directing 100% of my comment to you. Your comment was simply the perfect springboard for a concise turn of phrase to express my frustration with those who seem determined to defend Obama NO MATTER WHAT which I have no patience for (for example, defending the selection of Geithner and Larry S. to head the economic team).

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/06/bank-regulation-heats

Plus I didn't like the particular method you chose to bash Rachel (yes, bash by comparing her to an obnoxious/overzealous sports parent).

PS---The "it's only been X number of days" line is irrelevant to me. I haven't written off the president, I just praise and criticize case by case as things go along. Unfortunately the economic team and toxic bailout plan are horrible based on what I know (or more importantly, based on what qualified others who know far more than I know), but of course I sure hope to be proven wrong on that and other fronts.

Time will tell, but suggesting that everyone needs to wait 4 years before weighing in reminds me of Bush saying that "history will be the judge" of his presidency. At any rate, I'm sure we agree a whole lot more than we disagree, this situation aside! :)

[Maat]

69. Are you kidding me?

There was no concept more important to our founders than precluding someone from being detained indefinitely without charge (without due process, and fairly speedy due process at that). This is it, baby - THE BIG DEAL. If our government is willing to do this - TO ANYONE - then we have no business taking the moral high ground - EVER. We have no business calling ourselves either a modern nation or a representative democracy. We are no longer the great country that they founded, or for which the founders had such high hopes.

[ClusterFreak]

71. Your founders also thought it was cool to own slaves.

Talk about being detained indefinitely. Do you cut them slack on that?

Your founders had their hypocrisies too, as well as their lofty and admirable ambitions.

Context is everything.

Again, it's been 4 and a half months...no one knows yet how this decision or that decision will manifest itself in practical application. Cut Obama some slack.

[Maat]

74. What you've stated is totally irrevelant.

In law school, you spend four years getting an idea of what the country is supposed to be all about. This ain't it.

Loudly condemning the trashing of our most basic constitutional principle is not something that waits - not even a day.

[ClusterFreak]

79. Slavery is irrelevant?

I noticed you didn't deny what I said, only dismiss it as irrelevant. An awfully progressive point of view, indeed.:sarcasm:

What about the obvious dichotomy between the noble constitutional principles the founders espoused over two hundred years ago, and the reality that not all men at that time were in fact created equal...because the brown men (and women) were also the founders' property?

To echo what someone else on this thread so aptly and succinctly pointed out, call me when they start rounding up the teachers and locking them away.

Then I'll loudly condemn indefinite detention, or prolonged detention, side by side, with you.

I believe Obama is a good man who is trying to find his way out of the tangled mess of war(s), recession, and 8 years of ceded moral leadership which Bush left on his doorstep January 20th. Obama isn't perfect, but let's get real...he's not Bush-lite or anything even remotely resembling that. And again...it was January 20th. Of this year. We're talking months, not years, here.

And it took years, 8 years, for Bush to do what he did to America. It's going to take years, not months, for Obama to undo it. I think he's up to the challenge.

[Maat]

80. I didn't mean slavery was irrevelant; I meant it was irrevelant to Obama's current actions.

I take that you mean locking up innocent civilians, who were turned in for the bounty ... well, they don't matter. We'll wait until a U.S. teacher is locked up. What kind of crap is that?

This is something very, very wrong that's happening NOW .... he needs to loudly proclaim it "wrong" NOW.

Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen, who was seized illegally in the U.S. His constitutionally-mandated rights were ignored, and the most vile tortures committed upon him. They prevented him from seeing a human face for the longest time. A U.S. citizen is now a basket case because of his treatment; and, Obama has done nothing about it, or said nothing about it. That doesn't concern you? It has to be a teacher?

[ClusterFreak]

83. The projection never ends, does it?

The guy can't win if he doesn't right every wrong right fucking now. He hasn't so he won't. That seems to be the logic here. Except it makes no sense.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think Obama released the CIA torture memos this spring...and then turn right around to say he wanted to 'move forward'? Why not just skip the memos release altogether and move straight to the moving forward part? I mean, if he wanted to sweep it all under the rug, that would've been the logical move wouldn't it? No, instead Obama put it out there...'Here it is media, congress, blogosphere...here it is, American people. This is what these people did, what do you think of it?' Then he handed it off to Holder and the DOJ, purposely, and astutely, putting himself in a position where no one could accuse him (although right wing nutters still did) of politicizing the entire issue. Of exacting some kind of Bleeding Heart Liberal Revenge Fantasy against the previous 8 years.

Now, if the DOJ doesn't act, there's just cause to be outraged. But again...I go back to projection. It's not fair to say Holder isn't going to act, just because he hasn't yet. Yet. Maybe he's going to whitewash the whole thing...or maybe he's trying to build a case against Cheney? It's as good as guess as any. Why do you think Cheney is out and about, talking to anyone and everyone who'll listen? Why is his daughter doing it too? Why did he do a 180 away from his historical proclivity towards complete and total secrecy with an accountability to no one but himself? Release ALL the memos, President Obama...release all of them. But Dick, what about national security? Oh I get it...that only applies when you're in power, but when you're out of power and looking to save your own skin, then fuck national security, and fuck the possible blowback on U.S. troops serving in war zones, right? Maybe Cheney and his daughter are talking to anyone who'll listen, because they are both scared shitless that something is cooking and they're trying to skew a potential jury pool.

Maybe the glass is half-full when it comes to Obama's actions and his motives, and not half-empty? That's how I look at it. I have faith in the guy. It's still incredibly early in his presidency, he's acting on a helluva lot of his promises - though admittedly not in exact accordance with every one of them as they were expressed on the campaign trail. And no, he hasn't fulfilled all of them, yet. Yet he's still over 60 percent approval in the polls. Is that the American sheeple talking? I don't think so, I think it's the voice of practicality, moderation and even relief, that it's Obama and not Bush anymore. IMO, it's all of those things, with a left of center tilt.

If past actions are the best predictors of future behaviour, then it seems to me there's good reason to believe Obama is going to quiet a lot of impatient naysayers who now want to tar him with the label of just another member of the Washington Corpocracy.

Anyway...I'm too tired to write anymore...have the last word if you want. It was fun discussing things with you, even if we have different points of view on this one.

[serbbral]

97. ClusterFreak .....

I want to give you a d!mn hug!!!! I agree with you 100% and
you stated your message so eloquently.

[ClusterFreak]

103. Thanks!

Welcome to DU!:-)

[liberation]

102. Indeed... coming up with so many red herrings must be exhausting.

Nothing, nothing what you just wrote there has anything with the due criticism of Obama on this issue.

And BTW, the victim here is not Obama, he is a grown man and the president to boot... I am sure he will be just fine, the victims here are the current (and future) people who are held by the US government without access to due process of law. In the big scheme of things, not having access to constitutionally-backed legal processes is a far graver offense than saying anything remotely contrarian regarding the policies of Mr. Obama.

It is scary to see so many lemings. I bet you would be blowing a fuse by now if Bush was pulling the same stunt. Talk about hypocrisy.

[balantz]

105. Exactly. This has nothing to do with petty personalities and supporting them

in ourselves or in our politicians. Lemmingness and pride of "the group in charge" dangerously abounds (as if it is in charge).

This is about terrorism, despotism and tyranny of the state and the precarious and fragile position of our rights.

"Bushco" and their masters must be pleased with how things are turning out these days.

[ClusterFreak]

106. Wow. You must have extraordinary contortionist's skills....

...to be able to simultaneously lay claim to an argument's moral high ground with the one side of your mouth, while stooping to banal name-calling with the other.

[tomp]

93. we have not been that country for a long, long time.

and as far as the upstream comment about having "faith" in "our" political leaders, an argument could be made that having faith in the process of american politics to accomplish something good for either the american people or the world is tantamount to insanity, that, is either criminally un- or mis-informed or just plain delusional, and a "danger to others", as the psychiatrists say.

[balantz]

14. I'm not sure people understand this.

Anyone labeled a "terrorist" by the government can be held indefinately. Obama is furthering this power. Your relative, neighbor, teacher, a political activist... anyone deemed a "terrorist"..

[tridim]

39. Get back to us when Obama locks up a teacher as a terrorist.

:eyes:

[balantz]

43. O.K., if you don't want to look that far down the road, how about an environmental activist?

Sad fact is there are people being held now around the world who may never see the light of day, or even the light of a sentence and trial.

See this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x454840

[tridim]

45. My point is that unfair projection can be just as dangerous as being cautious.

Usually projection requires at least some basis in past actions. Nothing Obama has done would lead me to believe he's going to start locking up Americans as terrorists like BushCo did. Not even close.

[bahrbearian]

92. So why did he give Bush the Power to do that?

Just don't give them the power to do it.

[ClusterFreak]

54. Exactly. Thank you. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. No. That is absolutely NOT true.

The only people to be held 'indefinitely' (which does NOT mean 'forever' - it means for an undefined term) are those foreign nationals who have taken up arms against us and are deemed to be a continuing threat, but had committed no prosecutable crimes - IOW, enemy soldiers in an undeclared war.

American citizens are NOT subject to this - they are subject to US law. Terrorists who have committed identified crimes are NOT subject to this - they are subject to US law (much like the one who was brought from Gitmo today, accused in the Kenya embassy bombing).

When we withdraw from Iraq, those 'indefinite' detainees from Iraq will be returned to Iraq. When we withdraw from Afghanistan, those 'indefinite' detainees from Afghanistan will be returned to Afghanistan. Their term of incarceration is indefinite because we don't know yet when that will be.

It is the same as dealing with ANY POWs. Indefinite detention, pending end of hostilities.

[zalinda]

63. Please tell me where it says this. n/t

[followthemoney]

67. Does this mean Padilla ...

who was picked up at O'Hare airport, is going to be released and compensated by the incumbent?

Padilla is a U.S. citizen who has been tortured, for those of short memory and rose colored glasses.

I don't believe the incumbent has differentiated himself from his predecessor on this issue.

[yodermon]

56. False. Only current Gitmo detainees whose status was fucked up by bush

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

[Coyote_Bandit]

16. The criticism is based on his own words

That is a completely fair criticism.

Too bad there is no one to require that Mr. Obama explain just how his words are consistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[followthemoney]

18. All Politicians lie

Shame on you for being so naive as to believe campaign promises are real promises.

Just because you are allowed to vote in the oligarchy's election doesn't mean it is your election.

The people vote for show. The politicians vote for dough.

You Go Obama. Show the hoi polloi who the real boss is.

Suckers

[Captain Hilts]

21. As DUer Nichomachus said yesterday ...

"that so much energy is spent defending him, when we need to be holding his feet to the fire.

He's a politician. He's not your brother. He's not your prom date. He's not your coach. He's a politician.

The minute you fall in love with a politician or start putting unquestioning trust in him -- you are finished."

[followthemoney]

24. True Dat n/t

[Captain Hilts]

28. I mean, I really like the fact that he is president. But I rip his name off articles about policy

and look at the policy.

[Buzz Clik]

29. Well, that's all fine, but not exactly relevant.

The problem with Maddow and a lot of DUers is that they lash out at Obama over speculation, perceived lack of action, and invented reversal of policy. Often, we are not defending Obama as merely true to point out the reality of the situation.

[followthemoney]

31. Well, that's all fine, but not exactly reverent...

Is what you must have meant to say.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Ouch! nt

[Buzz Clik]

34. No. I worded my response carefully.

It is a common misconception that anyone defending Obama "reveres" him. Most of us are simply slower to come to judgment.

[Usrename]

88. How long would it take you to come to judgment if it was YOUR family?

What is so wrong about our American ideals that we should abandon things like the presumption of innocence or the concept of equality?

Do you honestly believe that the presumption of innocence has not been fundamental to our American identity?

These people have not been charged with any wrongdoing, yet they have been incarcerated for years. One second is too long to be incarcerated under these circumstances. Why are you so willing to see people locked up for at least another year without charges? Is it because they are Muslims? Is it because they are not your relatives? Is it because you believe that certain people are not entitled to basic human rights, that they are a separate species of sub-human?

Just what is the rationale here, the justification for Obama's behavior. Bush's justification was the fact that he is a fascist idiot. What is Obama's excuse, or yours, for that matter? Seriously.

How long is it going to take you and Obama to come to judgment here? Is there some powerful insight that you and he are waiting for, something that has been overlooked by everyone for the last seven years, some magical discovery that will change everything once someone finds it?

What is this magic that you expect to happen over the next year?

[Captain Hilts]

32. There is a paper trail and official statements in this case. It's not speculation.

He needs to define why what he is doing is different/the same/better/more just than what President Bush was doing.

'Trust me' isn't good enough.

[Buzz Clik]

35. It's not unusual for people to consider the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

We clearly differ in our opinions.

[Captain Hilts]

37. I don't really have one on this issue. But I understand why some folks are disappointed. You are

focused on a person and Maddow is focusing on a policy.

[Buzz Clik]

38. Another misconception. I simply disagree with her analysis.

[balantz]

22. Will the mods please place this video on the front page?

It contains important Obama administration policy information that affects us all.

Thank you.

[zalinda]

23. Those of you who are berating Rachel

did you see the tape? Where are your American values? Did George Bush corrupt you? Prolonged detention, in any form is NOT American. It's like the during WWII, when they rounded up the Japanese, but, this is worse because it is hidden. Would you accept it if a member of your family was in "prolonged detention"? How can you justify this? I didn't accept when it was George Bush, and I'll be damned if I accept it because it's the Democrat Obama.

zalinda

[Buzz Clik]

36. LOL! Speaking of Bush... anyone who doesn't embrace your opinion is "NOT American"?

Jeebus fucking Christ. Karl Rove would be proud.

[zalinda]

40. So you think prolonged detention is okay?

Talk about Rove's wet dream.

zalinda

[Buzz Clik]

41. Nope. I don't like your argument, either.

[zalinda]

60. Then how about

abiding by the rule of law in America, Innocent until proven guilty. This has been our cry, our pride, and prolonged detention does away with it. Obama should know better.

zalinda

[booley]

44. actually he said

Prolonged Detention, as in detention without charge or trial, is not American.

Unless you are a verb, no one was not calling you "Not American"

And it's hard to get where you would have gotten that if you had read the post unless you wanted to create a straw man.

In which case you might want to hold off accusing anyone of using "Rovian tactics"

Zalinda's argument was that prolonged detention was not American and we should not tolerate it anymore then we did under Shrub.

I do not see anything there that is unreasonable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

108. Who, exactly, is being detained?

These are NOT in ANY way equivalent to the Japanese Americans who were interred in WW2.

They ARE equivalent to German and Japanese POWs picked up on the battlefield in WW2. And if we were not about to release any WW2 POWs while the war was on-going, why should we release these POWs while THIS conflict is ongoing? Did you seriously buy into Rummy's statement that this war would not end in our lifetimes - that it is a generational war? That is bullshit.

430 gitmo detainees. 430 individual cases to be weighed. Some few are already being processed for criminal trial in the US. Others, like the Uyghurs, have been cleared of all charges but cannot be sent home because if they go back they face execution by their own governments. 430 DIFFERENT cases, each to be weighed on its own merits.

What is YOUR solution?

[peacetalksforall]

42. I am stunned at DU members. How many years have we criticized

corporate tv for pimping for the WH and how many years did we rant against the WH for the inhumanity they through down at the world.

Obama does something that is unconstitutional and DUers are shooting the messenger?

I am furious at Obama. I demand better. A Constitutional Scholar does this?

No way can anyone justify this.

And who are we talking about - Rachel Maddow? We are shooting the messenger. Really?

Thank you Rachel. I didn't know about this speech. I am horrified.

Is this video the first of thread on this subject within DU?

If yes, I honor the person who posted it. I honor Rachel and MSNBC (a painful act for me to honor MSNBC). I am furious at Obama. This is not explainable because it is inhuman. I can't find the right words to show my anger.

He comes back from a peace trip to the ME and gives us this - in a building of the National Archives?

And DUers are offended that there is criticism of this act? this decision? I am appalled.

[nashville_brook]

48. amen! guess it's verboten to criticize ANYTHING obama does -- no matter how bushlike.

nice to know where DU really stands.

[ihavenobias]

62. That's not true. No one blindly supported the pro-wall street, pro-deregulation economic team.

Oh wait, never mind.

I know, the apologists will say it's a case by case basis, except that it's generally not. I for one have criticism AND praise for the president, so I have little patience for those that only have one or the other.

[nashville_brook]

96. during the campaign Obama himself implored 'the people' to keep his feet to the fire

cynically, i believe this is because 'peoples' movements' provide political cover to do the right thing. he has monied and powerful interests pulling him every which way -- if we lay down like children believing he's got it all under control and doesn't need our input, then, well, we'll get the sort of government that children deserve. if

instead we stand up for what's right and criticize his policies when they deserve critique, then, we'll get the government we work for.

either way, the constant drumbeat of "Obama: love him or leave DU" is complete bullshit. childish, revolting, bullshit.

[Maat]

66. I was going to post the same thing - but you've said it so well.

I am absolutely stunned that Obama did not stand up - the first day in office - and loudly condemn incarceration without due process.

Of course, when I first heard him mention "prolonged detention," I went out and re-registered as an independent. I want no part of a party whose "chief" would even entertain such a concept - and who would even suggest that it's legitimate and has a part in the American landscape. It's just sickening.

Maat, J.D.

[peacetalksforall]

70. I always said that I was an Independent who voted Democratic. I always held

back a little. Then gave it up because it became impossible to vote for an Independent for President because of the constant close calls.

Though I started out guarded about Obama, I pleaded with something within me to trust more. I was on a heart high on Inauguaration Day. I was so thrilled that there had been a breakthrough of race. I had so much trust. I told myself that he would never betray all those little people who were there for him at this pinch-me-is-this-for-real event. I thought it must be the greatest day in this and the last century. My key word of elation was 'reverse'. He would reverse the damage of the PNAC crowd and their sponsors. For the good of all of us - the little people.

I now need to read something that would help me understand why he did this - something that would convince me to hold off, to wait, to hope - not to have this tight breathing feeling inside me. Not to have this end-of-America feeling.

[Maat]

72. Hang in there.

I've PM'd my feelings to you.

[balantz]

73. I have the habit of refering to us humble masses as "little people" too.

I think we should start calling ourselves the "Big People", because we're bigger than they are in spirit and in our capacity to struggle through their shit, and there's a whole lot more of us than them!

[waiting for hope]

82. +1

and K&R for Rachel.

[Beam Me Up]

47. If the government had sufficient evidence to try and convict the detainees,

evidence that was not derived under torture, wouldn't they have done so already? How many years does it take to build a case against a terrorist especially when you have at your disposal the DoJ, FBI, CIA and military intelligence? Why is there so little evidence tying many if not most of these detainees to al Qaeda and the events of 9/11 NOT derived from torture? Why is it they are never referred to as "alleged" terrorists? Why did the previous administration NEED to torture them? Why does the current administration NEED to keep them in detention indefinitely? -- Especially if they lack any evidence to try and convict them for acts of terrorism?

[peacetalksforall]

53. This is called yanking able bodied men off the streets. If we can do it on foreign

soil we can do it on our soil and it is Nazi Germany all over again.

Imperialism in all its glory. Humanity and dignity not allowed. Destruction of families. Denials of life opportunities. Which is worse to be shunned by your own or be lost on earth and stripped of rights.

Obama is continuing imperialism in all its non-glory.

This is the Inquisition all over again. I despise every aspect of Christianity that believes in this.

[truedelphi]

50. K & R for viewing later. n/t

[yodermon]

55. I'm confused. Isn't this "Prolonged Detention" scheme only applying to existing Gitmo Detainees?

the ones that are in legal limbo bcz the bush maladministration tainted evidence against them by FUCKING TORTURING them?

I didn't get the impression from the speech that any *new* captured prisoners of war would fall into this "indefinite detention" category.

to wit

The president stopped short of saying he would institutionalize indefinite detention for future captives.

"The issue is framed pretty exclusively in terms of existing Guantanamo detainees," said Tom Malinowski, the head of Human Rights Watch's Washington office. "There is a big difference between employing an extraordinary mechanism to deal with legacy cases compromised because of Bush administration actions and saying we need a permanent national security regime."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Rachel and some DUers here are assuming that US citizens could be snatched off the street by Tom Cruise and Herr Obama and disappeared. um? not exactly.

[tridim]

57. You're not confused. This thread is loaded with intellectually lazy projection.

[Usrename]

90. Intellectually lazy projection?

Really? Is that what you call it? We should all look the other way or something? No one has any duty to ensure that our laws and our Constitution are faithfully adhered to?

Everyone should just ignore those concepts of liberty and justice because to contemplate those ideals is nothing but a waste of time? Just a bunch of intellectually lazy projection?

[Usrename]

89. If the law cannot stop him, what can stop him?

You are arguing that our laws must not prevent Obama from rounding up people and incarcerating them without any charges. If it is not the duty of law enforcement to stop him from doing this, then what exactly will stop him from locking people up without any charges? He seems fine with the whole concept.

This is not about Obama or Bush, this is about what is legal and what isn't legal. This is about the difference between a banana republic and what America is supposed to stand for. If we wanted a banana republic we would have voted for Palin.

How long would you want your children locked up without any charges? Would six years be too long, or would you go along with locking them up for that seventh year if the President was likable enough about it?

They should be charged, or they should be free to go.

That is a basic human right. I don't see what is complicated about it. Why rip up the Constitution and disobey long standing laws and abandon our love of liberty in order to accomplish something that is so fundamentally wrong that even a child can see that it's wrong?

[yodermon]

98. reread my post. no new Human Beings on Planet Earth can be "rounded up without charges"

under this proposal. It applies only to current gitmo inmates whose legal status has been DELIBERATLY SABOTAGED BY BUSH for this exact reason: can't try them because evidence against them is tainted; can't let em go because they're "at war"* with the US.

Although maybe you're right; what would happen if we *did* just let them go? Would it be possible for Obama to navigate the political minefield of "well bush fucked these guys up so i have to choice but to let them go; if they end up killing people it's bush's fault, time for some pie?" Welcome to Romney '12.

[Usrename]

107. That's more crazy talk.

If they are truly POWs, then treat them like POWs.

Why does that seem complicated to you?

[balantz]

61. In answer to a few posters there are many of us who don't want to see

the furtherance of fascism in any shape or form. We have had enough of that shit and want to reverse such policies, including extrordinary powers of the administrative branch. Such policies can be bent to be used on U.S. citizens if this or any administration sees a need.

[Karenina]

65. I find her assessment CORRECT.

[jefferson_dem]

68. Friends like these...

Thanks for nothing Rachel. You bore me.

[liberation]

101. She is a journalist, not a "friend"

Not a hard concept to grasp in a grown up society. Blind acceptance is what got us in this mess to begin with.

[sattahipdeep]

75. Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on 'Prolonged Detention'

"I was and remain troubled by where the president seemed to be heading on this issue. The previous administration claimed the right to pick up anyone, even an American citizen, anywhere in the world; designate that person a so-called ‘enemy combatant,' even if he never engaged in any actual hostilities against the United States; and lock that person up possibly for the rest of his life unless he can prove, without a lawyer and without access to all, or sometimes any, of the evidence against him, that he is not an ‘enemy combatant.'

"That position was anathema to the rule of law. And while the president indicated a desire to create a system that is fairer than the one the previous administration employed, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values, and is likely unconstitutional.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/06/09-0#comments

[balantz]

76. Thank you. Feingold nails the argument with that. n/t

[rep the dems]

77. I realize Rachel only has a limited amount of time to cover everything

she wants to talk about in her show, but a little context here would be helpful. I have a feeling she's leaving out some important parts of Obama's statement.

[tomp]

94. your job would then be to review the text and get back to us. nt

[DeSwiss]

81. Keep telling the TRUTH, Rachel.....

K&R!!!

[pleah]

85. K&R