Obama Prepping KSM Cave-In
I’m now begging. Can we please stop the self-flagellation until he actually caves? He might very well cave, and this certainly does fit a pattern, but for my own sanity, I just can’t handle the pre-emptive outrage anymore.
Reader Interactions
159Comments
Comments are closed.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
I have my fingers crossed he won’t, but I agree about the premature outrage. But this is part of the liberal furniture by now, a force of nature, like regular bowel movements.
p.a.
‘post-emptive’ outrage doesn’t work… the modern Democratic Party needs continual backbone and gonad shoring-up. ugh- not a good sentence, but I think my point is clear.
J.W. Hamner
I’m not sure I agree… these things come out as trial balloons. The way you keep it a theoretical cave-in is by bringing the OUTRAGE.
Not to overstate the importance of blogosphere tizzies, but I do think they have some impact.
beltane
I’ve been finding it easier and easier to tune out the preemptive outrage lately. Maybe it’s because the weather’s gotten nicer or whatever, but I’ve developed a high tolerance for outrage. It has to be something really, really bad for me to feel it anymore.
Maude
Eric Holder at DoJ makes that decision. Not Obama.
Could someone please get it straight about who does what in the gummit?
I’ll shut up now.
Kryptik
Not sure I agree here, John. After all…isn’t this all because of Republican’s pre-emptive outrage at daring to try TERRORISTS as criminals? I think the problem is that the only ones on our side showing pre-emptive outrage are those without any goddamn say in things, while the people who are supposed to represent us on these things instead think it’s a good idea to Sister Souljah us.
geg6
@J.W. Hamner:
I agree. I do not subscribe to Mr. Cole’s strategy of waiting for the next extra-constitutional outrage to happen before bitching loudly about it. I prefer to at least make an attempt to stop it in advance.
The Grand Panjandrum
I think he’s just setting it up so that if HCR legislation passes we can move on to the next issue to go all penitente on. Oh Noes! are the coin of the realm lately.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@beltane: I’ll have what your having.
Zifnab25
Sometimes if you scream your head off loud enough, the Democrats check themselves before the go diving off the cliff. Honestly, I just don’t understand why the Dems don’t bull on ahead. Why even hedge? Just put your foot down. This is America. This is how we do things. If you don’t like it, move to China.
Every time the Republicans throw a giant fit (WMDs! Man-Dog Sex! Atheist inspired hurricanes!) they look like crazied ignorant jackasses and lose support. Put the KSM trial up, let the Republicans go ape-shit, and laugh when the case goes completely by the book. That will probably be the most powerful indictment against Bush Era lawlessness.
Bill E Pilgrim
@p.a.: Well said actually.
I don’t think it’s unduly pre-emptive when it’s turned out to be the case each time. That would be the “fits a pattern” part.
Also: I don’t think it’s hisself that Yglesias is flagellating there, just saying.
Brick Oven Bill
What a great tactical and political decision to try Khalid in New York City. It was, uhhh, smart.
Sanka
They told me if I voted for McCain that terrorists would be tried in military tribunals. I guess they were right.
Moses2317
If the Obama Administration really folds on this issue, it will be horrible both as a policy matter and as a political matter. Pre-emptive outrage is absolutely necessary because it provides a chance that the Administration will not do this. Call the Whitehouse now and tell them that you want them to respect our Constitution and use the best judicial system in the world to convict the terrorists who attacked us.
Bill E Pilgrim
@J.W. Hamner:
This is what a lot of people here don’t seem to see.
The non-conservative Democrats have to scream and agitate as much as the Republicans are doing. Maybe they won’t get what they want, fine. The Republicans may not get what they want, it looks like, e.g. on HCR.
You yell anyway. That’s how it works.
If you just let the Republicans do it, it tips the board in their direction. Sure has done this time.
Sarcastro
We’re not supposed to bitch until it’s a fait accompli? What the fuck kind of moron shit is that!?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
My pre-emptive outrage trigger depends on the issue. I managed to remain relatively calm when I was told that Obama was going to pick Chuck Hagel as his running mate and put a Republican on the Supreme Court; I don’t get mad when Obama refuses to use the Imperator Spell to make Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson support Single Payer; but this one does seem to have some basis to it. But again, I’m more fucking exhausted than outraged.
beltane
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: The fact that Dick Cheney et al will never ever be prosecuted for their crimes is the big one for me. Everything else flows naturally from this huge miscarriage of justice, and I can’t get worked up over every subsequent fucked up thing.
stevie314159
So we watch Obama go out on the edge of the plank with the original decision.
Then we watch Webb, Bloomberg and other Democrats join the Cheneys in sawing it off and we say nothing.
And now we wonder why Obama’s in the water!
Progressives may not want Obama as their squad leader, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with any of them.
Chyron HR
@Brick Oven Bill:
@Sanka:
There’s some elections in ten months, guys. You might want to come up with a coherent political position before then.
Citizen_X
Jeez, John, you’re the one who just mentioned Permanent Lefty Butthurt.
Besides, I kind of agree with other commenters here: objectionable trial balloons are there to be shot down. (Witness the power of the blogosphere hissy fit!) Maybe that’s too much kabuki, tea-leaf reading, and other overused political metaphors, but our politics exist largely in the realm of theatre these days.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I have a deal to offer the Dem leadership. We’ll give up the pre-emptive outrage and emo butthurt, if you give up consistently, repeatedly doing brain dead stupid things which fully justify the pre-emptive outrage and emo butthurt after the fact, and which any reasonably intelligent and well informed 5th grader could have predicted would end in fisticuffs, tears and stolen lunch money.
Deal?
Deal!
Oh, by the way [this being said to the Dem leadership] – you go first.
Quiddity
I expect we’ll have the definitive answer on this issue by Sunday.
kay
It’s tough for Holder, if it’s true. I think he has to resign. He put himself out there on this, and did a great job defending the US system.
I’d resign. I don’t know how he does anything else. If they trump him for political reasons, and he goes along, he’s a “political” prosecutor. I don’t know how he gets out of that box.
cat48
I would like to know why he has to take the full brunt of this decision. Who has lobbied Congress for these civilian trials? Who has lobbied them to unfreeze funds so he can conduct these trials or move prisoners? Have you phoned your Senators and asked them to support civilian trials??
To give the Senate a free pass on this is infuriating. Those are the folks joining up with Repugs to block him. They deliberately froze all funds so he could not move Gitmo prisoners. Label him Black Jimmy Carter, fine. You might want to give that distinction to the Senate. They are an important part of the weak link. I especially appreciated how Schumer and Gillibrand supported him 100%, NOT. They caved you know after the crowd protesting in NY decided they should “Lynch, Holder.”
General Egali Tarian Stuck
Reports were that Obama was shelving HCR, before going full bore for it. It is not always the case that leaks like this have turned out to be what happens. Sometimes, they have, but just as often IMO, the worst doesn’t happen with this Administration.
Obama has personally assured America that AG Holder makes these final decisions. Aside from general disappointment from the left if he were to capitulate, it would be reversing his promise that the WH won’t interfere with DOJ decision making on these things. For example, Holder deciding to appoint Special Prosecutor after Obama and the WH had promised during the campaign and after, that he wasn’t interested that much in opening up Bush era investigations.
If he does back off on this, then he will have broken a big promise and will deservedly take a big pol hit for it. That’s why I don’t think he will, but who knows. The public clearly wants these people kept and tried in Military Courts. It is America, land of well scrubbed chickenshits.
Rob
This would be the stupidest and most cowardly of all the stupid cowardly decisions BHO has made. Please let this not be true.
David in NY
I’m with that.
Violet
@J.W. Hamner:
This. Without the OUTRAGE, there is no pushback. Outrage meters have to go to eleven for anyone to pay any attention, it seems. Sadly.
cat48
@stevie314159:
Your right! Don’t forget “progressive” Chuck Schumer and Gillibrand grabbing saws either.
The Grand Panjandrum
Rahm! No other explanation should be considered. Occam’s Razor! (OK one other explanation is plausible: The Cheney found Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate. )
lacp
I’m neither outraged nor butthurt. Of course, I’m not a Democrat, either.
gwangung
The land of STUPID well scrubbed chickenshits.
Military courts are gonna be wayyyyyy more lenient on terrorist suspects.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Moses2317:
What I intend to do, and write a letter and call my CC’ers. That is proper outrage. I think Cole was referring to the Blogosphere and the usual suspects bouncing off the walls with the epic poutrage based on half truths, or rumors. If they limited to the situation at hand, that would be one thing, but it always goes much further into Obama fail for everything that has gone wrong in the world since the beginning of time. A lot of these folks on the left, do not like Obama and never did, for a variety of reasons.
Maude
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Doesn’t the Prez have to stay out of DoJ decisions?
Didn’t Nixon cross that line? Was it on a Saturday night?
Joe Beese
“can’t handle the pre-emptive outrage” = “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”
And when he does cave, John – as you know in your heart that he will – what denial of reality will you be forced to resort to then?
salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/05/obama/index.html
Shalimar
@Chyron HR:
Their only political philosophy is that Democrats are always wrong and evil no matter what they do. Even when the Democrat agrees with them. It’s batshit insane, but at least it’s coherent insanity.
Lavocat
It would be irresponsible not to speculate …
And so it goes.
gwangung
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Yeah. If you want to go yell at your Congresscritter about this, that’s fine. If you want to yell at ME to go yell at my Congresscritter about this, that’s fine. That’s the way to apply pressure.
Just sit around and whine about getting stabbed in the back? Not so much (it’s OK to apply pressure and THEN whine).
The Larch
You’re right John. In fact, I’m going to bring that point of view into other aspects of my life.
For instance, if I see someone preparing to light a cigar while pumping gas, I’ll just hold my tongue. After all, he hasn’t really done it yet.
Then after he blows the damn place sky-high, I’ll write a snarky blog post about how the victims of his stupidity are feeling ‘butthurt’.
David in NY
I think every Administration resolves these questions a different way. For example, I heard Seth Waxman, former Solicitor General (the officer who represents gov’t in the Supreme Court) under Clinton, talk about a case, in which the Fourth Circuit had held that Congress had overridden Miranda v. Arizona, notwithstanding that the government itself had taken the position that it could not (because Miranda was a constitutional decision). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, which suggested at least that it might adopt the Fourth Circuit position, effectively overruling Miranda.
Waxman decided that whether the government would continue to take its prior position supporting the continued vitality of Miranda was, as they put it these days, above his grade level, and made an appointment to discuss the case with Clinton.
Now, I would have been doubtful about the outcome here, Clinton having favored cutting back habeas corpus rights, etc. Waxman must have felt the same way. Anyway, when he got to the Oval Office and presented the question to Clinton, Clinton thought about it for a minute and said, “I didn’t get elected to overrule Miranda v. Arizona.” And that was that.
Sometimes it’s that simple.
geg6
Well, based on the WaPo’s typically anonymously sourced reporting, the people/person who is/are the “administration officials” who leaked this is/are waiting with baited breath for the screams of outrage from “disappointed liberals.” I would guess this/these persons may have some knowledge about rumored deals with a certain Southern senator over this very issue.
I don’t know that I am sure who those “administration officials” might be, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Oooops. Forgot the link:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030405209_pf.html
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Maude: Doesn’t have to by any law, unless, it was what Nixon did and direct the DOJ to break the law. Different kettle of fish. Though it would be folly to believe, any president wasn’t in on his DOJ making politically consequential decisions, but in this case, it would be reversing a decision already made, and would obviously be due to political concerns of the WH> not good at all for Obama if he accepts the recommendation.
El Cid
Excuse me — though I get the empirical skepticism, what the fuck good would be accomplished by ‘liberal outrage’ after the fucking fact?
This might be the absolutely nitwittiest argument theme I encounter on this blog.
This is exactly the point of raising hell before a decision takes place.
Do you think the fucking right wing waits until after a decision is made to begin demanding their way?
What?
eemom
@The Grand Panjandrum:
dude! Was wondering how y’all got to 31 without someone invoking RAAAAAAAAAHM, Teh Root of All Evil.
joes527
@J.W. Hamner: So, could someone PLEASE tell me when it isn’t either:
a) too early to get worked up
or
b) too late to do anything about it
Because in my experience the gap between those times is on the order of -2 months.
CynDee
@ John Cole: No more pre-emptive outrage — an excellent idea; thank you.
@beltane: Weather’s gotten nicer ? ? Where are you? I’ll go there.
kay
So they probably leaked it to bring pressure on the President, right?
Now the other side can leak something, and we’ll know less.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@gwangung: Nobody is stopping you from screaming here or anywhere else. I just stated my own opinion on what I think is the right kind of dissent, especially when we have anonymous sourced stories to rely on.
But by all means, let it out. Don’t let my comment stop you from doing what you need to do. Though I may or may not have a response to it. This is blogging.
Chat Noir
@beltane: Exactly. Every time I read or watch something from one of the Bush Administration criminals, I kvetch to myself, “Why aren’t you in prison yet?”
Malron
Obama wants to try KSM in New York. The mayor of New York refuses to allow it to happen. Two Democratic senators from New York offer little or no support for the idea. Obama’s fault.
Obama promises to close Gitmo. Congress refuses to provide funding for the move. Obama’s fault.
Obama wants to buy a maximum security prison in Illinois to house detainees. Congress refuses to provide funding again. Obama’s fault.
Once you recognize that every failing of a cowardly Democratic party with majorities in the House and Senate is the fault of the guy in the White House, life becomes so much easier to understand.
/sarcasm.
cat48
kay
@El Cid:
I this instance, I agree with you. I think.
I think the anti-trial people put this out there, to advance their side, so it’s only fair that the pro-trial people push back.
kay
@Malron:
It isn’t either-or. They can try him in the US without trying him in New York. New York was problematic anyway. I can’t imagine where they were going to get a jury. The defense would object to that, and they should.
TD
I disagree.
This is probably a kind of trial balloon. I think it’s pretty important to express disapproval now while it MAY be possible to change outcomes.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Malron: facts smacts. Your gonna harsh the liberal outrage with those dude. Obama is El Presidente of this Banana Republican, and Generalisimo of HIS congress. He could disappear them and their sedition with a wave of his sword.
someguy
Obama! FTW!
As long as we’re going to do preemptive flaggelation, might as well do preemptive responses too.
burnspbesq
This pisses me off, but as a resident of CA-40, I have no constructive outlet for my dismay. And I have too much work to do today to start drinking at 8:05 a.m.
Those of you who have invested in popcorn futures will likely be able to realize substantial gains if you cash out today. I expect a huge spike in demand ahead of tonight’s debate among the candidates for the Republican Senate nomination in California. Carly, Demon Sheep Campbell, and DeVore – what’s not to love?
beltane
@Chat Noir: Seeing Liz Cheney as a regular on TV has done more harm to my faith in this country than any military tribunal can. Sorry, but when the big crime is allowed to go unpunished, it’s awfully hard to get worked up over all the rest. When I see Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and John Yoo in jail, I’ll work up some outrage over the fate of KSM.
scarshapedstar
For fuck’s sake, John, it’s called being proactive rather than reactive.
Remember the anti-war protests? They didn’t do much, but it sure as hell wouldn’t have made much sense to wait until the war started, right?
He’s got to make a decision one way or another. Caving to the wingnuts is bad optics (enough with the Lex Luthor theory, for fuck’s sake!) and worse politics (why should he kowtow to teabaggers who would crawl over red-hot lava to vote against him?) and we ought to at least let him know where we stand, because the teabaggers sure as hell don’t have any reservations about telling him off.
Just out of curiosity, if the teabaggers scream and spin their heads and projectile-vomit and we remain politely silent, how do you think this gonna turn out?
Nick
@Zifnab25:
Like I said, if you think it’s just the Republicans going ape-shit…you need to come to New Jersey.
mr. whipple
I’ve moved on from this outrage in the last half hour.
What’s the next one?
Let’s keep this moving along.
geg6
I think Spencer Ackerman has this exactly right:
washingtonindependent.com/78470/will-obama-really-give-up-on-ksm-trial-without-a-fight
But what do I know. I’m one of those who think it’s best to cut off the head of the snake before it slithers across my feet. Obviously not a realist, you know.
kay
@Nick:
I agree, and we don’t even have to go to New Jersey.
Half of the Democrats in Congress are waffling or opposing.
The problem isn’t Republicans.
Kryptik
@Zifnab25:
They only look like jackasses after the damage from their selective pre-emptive outrage has been done though. And even then, it always takes our folks in Washington just a little longer to realize they’ve been had than the hippies they were ignoring beforehand.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@burnspbesq:
Every time I see this I keep thinking Major Devore, the uber ratfucker from David Wingrove’s Chung Kuo series. Then I stop and catch myself when I remember that (A) we may be fucked, but we aren’t that fucked, at least not yet, and (B) Major Devore would never have done something as non-devious as running for public office.
Mnemosyne
I think what John may be pre-emptively whining about is the form that the outrage will take:
Useful: “I can’t believe this! I’m going to call the White House/my senator/my representative and write a letter to the editor!”
Not Useful: “Well, what did you expect? I kept telling Obama is exactly like Bush but you wouldn’t listen to me. I’m so much smarter than all of you Obots.”
One action could actually, you know, push the White House to change its mind. The other, not so much.
Nick
@stevie314159:
Epic Win!
kay
Off topic, but amusing:
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the co-chairwoman of the abortion-rights-supporting caucus, predicted that abortion would not prove to be a sticking point among Democrats that brings down health reform efforts.
“I don’t think Congressman Stupak has the votes to kill healthcare legislation over his language not being in there,” DeGette told The Hill.
geg6
@kay:
From her mouth to the FSM’s ears. Hope she’s right.
Mnemosyne
But Obama’s the leader, so if they’re not listening to him, it’s because he’s a bad leader, not because the Dems in Congress are a bunch of cowardly prima donnas who want to make themselves look good by opposing the president at every turn.
/also sarcasm
joes527
@burnspbesq:
I hear you. (CA-52)
Pangloss
If only Obama had the power over congress that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter had…. Those two guys kicked ass and took names!!
kay
@geg6:
I think he has to name names, now.
geg6
@kay:
Yeah, I think you’re right. He’s been all coy on who the dozen or so he says he has are. Now she has pretty much double-dog dared him to put up or shut up.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@stevie314159: Teehee!! made me smile a little.
gopher2b
My only hope is that the administration is doing it to horse trade on HCR. Doubt it, but hopeful.
Violet
@geg6:
Up or down vote time?
geg6
@Violet:
Yes, please. :-)
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@gopher2b:
Problem is, the administration thinks horse trading means we meet, I have a horse, you have a horse, there’s something to like about both horses, so we cut them both in half and swap the bits we like. And every time they try to make this kind of trade with the GOPers, the Dems end up with the ass end of both horses and the right takes the head end of their horse and uses it to decorate somebody’s bed.
geg6
@gopher2b:
Personally, that’s not a trade off I’m willing to take.
Corner Stone
What a cluster.
Violet
@geg6:
Say it loud, say it proud! Up or down vote!
Corner Stone
@Malron:
This is an honest question because I just don’t know – can a mayor actually stop the DoJ from conducting its business where it chooses?
Corner Stone
@gopher2b:
Trade what for what in this scenario?
Corner Stone
@Mnemosyne:
I note your post was sarcasm but I wanted to add that, IMO, there actually is something to the quality of leadership.
Leaders lead. They find things people want and reward them with them, they find pressure points and exert said pressure, they deny respite to their enemy.
There’s nothing wrong with a consensus building leader/manager. But I’ve never worked for one or with one who built consensus this way, or who used the negotiating tactics we have seen to date.
And I work for Fortune 200 companies all the time, and if you think you’ve seen turf wars and petty egos, intractable assholes and prima donnas in our politicians?
BTD
What? No defense of Rahmbo, John?
You’re slipping.
BTD
@Corner Stone:
No, the Mayor can’t.
No, the Congress can’t either.
This is all on the Executive Branch.
kay
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
But why do we keep insisting it’s “with the GOP’ers”?
It isn’t. Not on any of these intelligence-security issues. Democrats in Congress have been ducking this stuff since 2006. Running from it, some of them.
There’s this persistent theme that Obama is bucking the liberal majority in Congress. He isn’t.
On security issues and terrorism, I would submit that the obvious reason that Democrats in Congress have actively blocked any kind of rational inquiry is because they were involved and complicit in some of these Bush-era decisions.
Is that really such a stretch? Was anyone listening to the democrats after 9-11? They were with the Republicans.
Mr Furious
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Not quite. The Democrats arrive with 2 of their best stallions. The Republicans show up with a horse John Boehner scrawled on the back of his notebook. They trade straight up.
Democrats proudly wave their “bipartisan horse sketch” while the Republicans throw the head of one horse into Harry Reid’s bed and saddle up and ride the other stallion over to FOX News studios.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@kay:
Good point.
GOPers = shorthand for the GOP and their Dem ideological allies and co-conspirators.
Nellcote
@BTD:
Congress is blocking funding.
kay
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Remember the National Security Democrats? My goodness. They were trying to outdo Bush.
Too, Cheney isn’t an idiot, and he made his bones in Watergate and then Iran Contra.
I bet he sent just enough to those closed committee briefings to implicate anyone signing off, and Democrats signed off. On what, we don’t know, but I’ll take a wild guess. I suspect that applies to torture and black sites.
FlipYrWhig
I’m already indignant about the NEXT outrage. I’m so MAD! I can’t believe it! What a sellout! So much for Hope and Change! That thing that will piss me off is ALREADY pissing me off! Fear my wrath, world!
Nick
@Corner Stone:
since said mayor’s police force is needed, yes.
Nellcote
Won’t this end up going to the Supreme Court? Or did we do that already?
kay
@Nellcote:
BTD likes to set this up as the loathsome Obama once again blocking the brave and valiant Democrats.
Unless we’re talking about healthcare, in which its the loathsome Obama insisting the brave and valiant Democrats stop blocking Obama’s horrible health care plan. Which congressional Democrats drafted. At this point, they’re blocking their own fucking plan, but no matter. It’s Obama.
It’s a “tell” as far as I’m concerned. At the very least, the sincere Obama critics occasionally go to Congress. Not BTD. It’s all the Prez.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
I doubt this is germane.
And I’ve seen plenty of L&O’s where Jack McCoy gets turfed by the US Attorney and the NYC DA bends over for their demands. It’s on TV = true.
Corner Stone
@Nellcote:
They are blocking funding for the DoJ?
valdivia
@stevie314159:
this exactly. a million times. they have been kneecapping him on National Security from day 1. I guess they got brainwashed during the Bush years that only the Republicans know how to do it. If they had followed his lead we would not be in this pickle right now.
This is the typical WashPo story in the shape of: political operatives want this done *x* way and Obama has not decided. But let us speculate how horrible it will be either way! I am going to wait til Obama himself orders Holder to do this, otherwise this is just about trying to get the political upper hand on the decision and bringing pressure.
J. Michael Neal
@Corner Stone:
In a number of instances, yes. If Congress passes a bill saying that the President may not spend any money on X, then the President can not lawfully spend money on X. We’ve had a bunch of Republicans who tended to go ahead and do it anyway, but that’s not really a model I want anyone to follow.
Darkmoth
@Corner Stone:
This brings up an interesting point. When you’re looking for a football coach, or a CEO, or a General, “leadership ability” is going to be at the top of your list of qualifications. When you’re voting for a President, I suspect most people judge based on how much they like the candidate’s positions.
During the primaries, I personally never really considered whether Obama was a strong leader. I considered his intelligence, and his positions, and even his persuasiveness – but the “can he twist arms” bit just never factored into my thinking. If it did, I’d end up voting for someone like Ed Rendell (my governor).
I think I sort of assumed (and I’m probably not alone), that the toughest challenge of a Democratic President would be something other than getting Democratic Senators to do Democratic things. I saw his job as coming up with good solutions, which the legislative branch would then enact. Boyyy, was I wrong.
Next election, my favored candidate will be mildly Progressive (this is optional), but have strong mob connections (this is mandatory). Ideally, his signature line will be “do not fail me again”.
Anya
John, I am an O’bot as much as the next person but I disagree with you on this issue. Those who are saying preemptive outrage is valid, are correct.
This issue is a matter of principle it’s not the same as all of those stupid leaks about the HCR. This is a major issue. I think Holder should put his job on the line for this. He should draw a line in the sad. It’s his job to decide where he wants to try these criminals.
Nellcote
@Corner Stone:
They are specifically blocking funding for trials. I presume that goes thru the DOJ.
…
How amusing would it be for them to try KSM via military courts and he gets released. They should appoing JAG Lindsay Graham for the defense.
kay
@Darkmoth:
I don’t know. You must have missed the Clinton Years, where Congressional Democrats couldn’t abandon him fast enough.
It didn’t work, they got creamed anyway, but they died trying to discredit Clinton!
As I recall, in that instance, health care failed because Bill Clinton did not allow Congressional Democrats to draft it.
In this instance, Congressional Democrats now say, health care will fail because Obama allowed Congressional Democrats to draft it.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Anya
@Anya: meant to say in the sand but sad works too.
Nick
@Corner Stone:
But did the mayor’s office? Completely different things. The Manhattan DA isn’t applicable here because there’s no jurisdiction fight here.
Mnemosyne
@Corner Stone:
How many of those petty egos, intractable assholes and prima donnas have control over a multi-trillion dollar budget? How many of them can decide that if they don’t want the CEO to have the money he’s requesting, they can just stonewall him because by law the CEO has no actual control over how the budget gets spent?
Everyone loves to compare government to business but it’s not a very useful comparison, because government has built-in checks and balances that business does not. If Steve Jobs wants someone fired in the finance department because they say what he wants will be too expensive, they’re fired. Probably in an elevator. And then the new guy gives Jobs what he wants. Government doesn’t work like that, by design.
You don’t have to think that Obama is the bestest leader ever. He’s screwed up more than once. But pretending that the only problem here is that Obama is not the greatest leader in the history of the world is dishonest.
I mean, come on, you didn’t even know that Congress blocked funding to move the Gitmo inmates to the US.
eemom
if all hell breaks loose over this, perhaps the terrorists will, in fact, have won.
Corner Stone
@Darkmoth:
Whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate, I do not believe that to be true.
I would say as a SWAG that most people would not vote for someone they saw as a “caretaker/manager” type personality with good positions on policy.
IMO, they look to someone they identify with and then invest that person with the kinds of traits they want in a leader.
My point was more that it’s not valid to say that the President of the USA is not a “leader”, or is somehow incapable of accomplishing some goals because he is stymied by personalities. Especially when by all accounts a majority of Americans favor some of those goals.
The contrast is that leaders achieve goals in different ways depending on the environment. Some stake a position and rally people to their goal by hook or crook and other methods. Some carefully suss out the way an issue may be trending, find the danger points, and coax a consensus to achieve a goal that may or may not have been their original intended outcome.
There are many ways to lead. I’ve just never seen it done this way in any environment.
And begging off that the Pres can’t take a hit because he’s working with difficult people in a difficult environment really doesn’t sell very well.
kay
@Mnemosyne:
That never gets mentioned in these impassioned pleas for justice. Which makes me wonder how closely the detainee issue is followed.
The Illinois prison plan was fairly big news.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
It’s a TV show. I don’t use what happens there as a guide to life.
That’s why I ended with the sublime.
Corner Stone
@Mnemosyne:
What are you talking about I didn’t know this? Do you have something to cite here because I don’t remember what you’re referring to.
Tonybrown74
@eemom:
The moment we suspended habeas corpus, watered down Miranda rights and muddied up the definition of Torture, the Terrorists won … sigh
Corner Stone
@Mnemosyne:
Is that all you got? Extremely poor summaries of other people’s posts and really atrocious strawmen?
Don’t fucking call me dishonest like I’ve ever said Obama was the entire totality of our political process. Bullshit wank.
J. Michael Neal
@Mnemosyne: This. To really see it in action, look at Britain. We generally think of it that they do let the CEO control the budget over there, but that’s not how it happened historically. Quite the opposite. Parliament had the power to spend appropriate the money, and used it so strongly that the head of government (the king) had to stop doing the job. They basically put the Senate Majority Leader in charge instead.
Darkmoth
@kay:
I’m not sure Clinton had the required leadership skills either. By required, I mean being “speak-in-whispers” terrifying, a Democratic Prez who is two steps ahead of bribery and blackmail indictments. A horse-head to bed ratio well above zero, etc. Basically, Frank Rizzo.
We’ve tried various leadership styles – cerebral(Carter), conciliatory (Obama), and determined (Clinton). It may be time to run some despotic thugs.
/snark (mostly)
Mnemosyne
@Corner Stone:
This is what you said:
That reads like you’re saying the base of the problem here is that Obama is a bad leader, not that Congress is filled with intransigent assholes who are blocking everything he does the same way they did with the last two Democratic presidents. Did I misread you?
If you’re not one of the people who has been screaming about how Obama is a failure because Gitmo is still open while ignoring the fact that Congress has refused to pay for the move, then I apologize. I thought you were one of them, but these threads go pretty fast, so I may have mixed up names.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Since when is criticizing the President “self-flagellation”? And how is he going to know it would be a dick move if you don’t tell him beforehand?
Darkmoth
@Corner Stone:
I think we’re saying the same thing here. A President is supposed to be a leader, but actual leadership/management skill is not something Americans vote for.
Where I disagree with you is your assumption that anyone can be a leader. A leader, not a supervisor. Someone who inspires obedience from those who don’t have to obey. I’ve known some leaders, and it’s not something that’s baked into every person.
It’s entirely possible that Obama isn’t leading the Dems because he’s not that guy who can. But we never vote for that guy.
kay
@Darkmoth:
I just don’t think you’re going to get a quasi-liberal who is a despotic thug.
I’m like Obama, actually. It’s one of the reasons I voted for him. I actually believe that civil discourse and persuasion can work. It has worked, for me. I don’t respect bullies, and I don’t respect thugs. I don’t manage like that and I don’t work like that.
This is tough for Holder, who I have a lot of sympathy for. I believe he was handed some very difficult issues, and he probably has to resign if he’s overruled here.
But, them’s the breaks when you’re at his level. I personally will no longer respect Holder if he folds. I think he has to persuade Obama to stay the course on the trial, or he has to resign.
Take it out of New York. If they’re so freaking scared put it somewhere else. It’s not like we lack federal courts.
MikeMc
Why are civilian trials better than military tribunals? Isn’t justice served in either case?
kay
@Darkmoth:
I never saw Clinton as weak. I think he’s cold, and a lot tougher than he is given credit for.
He makes deals. That’s what what he does. He doesn’t see that as inconsistent with “honorable”. There are a lot of people like that.
I read his very long book. I feel I understand him. The thing went on and on.
Darkmoth
@kay:
I think a lot of us thought so. I certainly did. But I am beginning to reconsider my position, at least politically, in this toxic environment.
I’m with you there.
Mnemosyne
By the way, this is the Faustian bargain that has been set up:
So basically the prisoners at Gitmo are being held hostage by Congress.
kay
@MikeMc:
The most ridiculous part of this whole debate is this: the military tribunals have been a huge flop, from the prosecution standpoint. The last time I looked, they had two convictions. They’re a mess. They tried to set up an alternative system, and, well, Bushies were running it. Think of Iraq.
We (the state) have had much more success in the standard trial process, if what you’re after is convictions.
IMO , this isn’t about anything practical. It’s about ideology, and fear, and some larger issue.
kay
@Darkmoth:
I’m not giving it up. It’s a “principle” too, and one that is worthwhile and valuable.
I don’t abandon it every time I run into an asshole, and I’m not doing that.
kay
@Mnemosyne:
Thanks. I wondered what the hell they wanted.
Mnemosyne
@MikeMc:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me the problem with doing military tribunals is that it continues the pretense that this is some kind of existential War Against Our Civilization when it’s really a bunch of petty thugs trying to scare people into doing what they want.
What KSM (allegedly) did wasn’t an act of war to fight for a grand idea. It was an attack on civilians meant to frighten people. Handing it over to a military tribunal validates al-Qaeda’s delusions of grandeur.
kay
@Mnemosyne:
You consistently post the answer to my as yet unasked question. So, thanks.
burnspbesq
@MikeMc:
No.
Notwithstanding all the lies we were told by the Cheney Organized Crime Family, we are not at war, and these guys are not enemy soldiers. Under what the rest of the world understands to be commonly held principles of the law of war, these guys can’t be tried by a court martial or anything like it.
They are accused criminals, and they belong in the criminal justice system.
TooManyJens
@Quiddity: I see what you did there.
p.a.
Was it the Bourbons about which Marx said ‘…they forget nothing, yet they learn nothing…’? Could be the motto of Congressional Democrats.
Nick
@Corner Stone:
well, the people want military trials and torture, so…
FlipYrWhig
I still can’t believe that our side takes such delight in disappointment. The story that everyone’s upset about says that WH advisers (who?) are nearing (how near?) a recommendation to do this Bad Thing. The latest Bad Thing. And, Lord knows, there will be others.
Obama hasn’t done the Bad Thing.
The advisers in question may not be the most important advisers.
The advisers haven’t made the recommendation.
The advisers may never make that recommendation.
The advisers may make the recommendation only to see Obama reject it.
But by the Greenwald-Aravosis-Hamsher Syllogism, this means Obama might as well have already done the Bad Thing, which proves Even Worse Things.
This makes no fucking sense. And it’s been happening for roughly two years.
Jamie
Obama does make it difficult to be his supporter
geg6
@FlipYrWhig:
You do understand that it likely that in at least 50% of the cases you are talking about that the reason the Bad Thing may not have happened is because there was a lot of fucking push back by people who the president needs to keep his job.
But obviously not, according to you and to Cole and others in this thread. We should sit back, wait until the Bad Thing happens, and then we’ll have people like you calling us WATB for being pissed off that the Bad Thing happened and we didn’t stop it.
Nick
@Jamie:
No less than 10 people told me that same thing on this issue, but only because he “cares too much about the rights of terrorists and not justice”
Nick
@geg6:
This really is a different situation. The reason bad thing is likely to happen is because they decided to go for good thing and found very little support for good thing even among people who the president needs to keep his job, so now they’re considering bad thing.
You can push back all you want, but you have to realize that this President risked a lot of capital to do good thing and found no one backing him up.
Again, this just goes back to my argument on stuff like the public option…why fight for what you know to be a lost cause to please your supporters if when you inevitably lose, your supporters bitch you out anyway.
Dr. Morpheus
@Malron:
This.
Right now we have rumors from anonymous sources, i.e., nothing.
But it wouldn’t hurt to let your Senators and the WH know that if they are even hypothetically considering this it will not be tolerated.
Nick
@Dr. Morpheus:
and the punishment will be, what? Staying home and letting Republicans win? Primarying them in a party where half the voting bloc won’t tolerate civilian trials?
None of this matters because those who oppose a military trial are basically irrelevant in this discussion. In a world where CNN can get away with openly accusing defense lawyers who defended terrorists of being terrorists themselves, we have no choice but to “tolerate” it.
FlipYrWhig
@geg6:
I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that. People–especially online–take a lot of credit for pushback and pressure. I don’t think it makes a difference. (The one case where I think it _might_ make a difference is calling local Congresspeople and Senators, because they do that force-multiplier thing and apply their own pressure upwards.)
I think executive-branch decisions are almost entirely non-responsive to the public. Obama consults with his advisers and relevant wonks and then proceeds. When he proceeds in a way the blogosphere likes, the blogosphere claims credit for making it happen. When he proceeds in a way the blogosphere doesn’t like, the blogosphere blames Rahm Emanuel.
All the opinions that we have out here _are already part of the in-house discussion_. When our opinion carries the day it’s not because it is ours. It might make us feel impotent, but I’m pretty sure that’s how it works.
Nick
@FlipYrWhig:
For many on the blogsphere, this isn’t about issues…it’s about relevance. When things go forth the way the want it, they like to spin as “look, we’re powerful, people pay attention to us” even though most of the time, the blogsphere isn’t even a factor. When things don’t go their way, they blame Rahm because to not would mean to admit they’re not relevant or powerful.
This is funny because when Eric Holder announced he was pursuing civilian trials, the blogsphere took credit for it. Now they’re blaming Rahm because it didn’t work out. Which is it? Is the blogsphere powerful one day and Rahm the next?
Dr. Morpheus
@Corner Stone:
I agree with you Corner Stone, you’re absolutely right.
Obama should be acting on this like he seems to be acting on HCR right now with the private meetings with recalcitrant Senators.
Some of the onerous work does indeed belong on his shoulders. But please admit that the bulk of the problem lies with members of his own party in Congress, o.k.?
Dr. Morpheus
@Nick:
Go Blanche Lincoln on them. Yeah, I know, it’s a possible Pyrrhic victory that way, but we cannot be held hostage by the threat of “The Greater Evil taking over” forever.
I’m not disagreeing that having Republicans replace ConservaDems because of ‘too liberal for the local’ candidate won the primary over the ConservaDem wouldn’t have bad consequences.
But we have to metaphorically, after careful consideration of the consequences, grin and bear the possible Republican victory if we are EVER going to have any semblance of party discipline.
And we need party discipline to roll back the 30 years of Reaganism.
Nick
@Dr. Morpheus:
Except if you primary a conservative Democrat with a liberal, win, and lose to a republican, you make your chances of party discipline worse because you proved them right. The only way you’re ever going to get any semblance of party discipline is to make it clear to conservative Dems that they CAN be replaced by liberals, not that we can beat them in a primary, only to be humiliated in the general.
I mean do you really think Lamont/Lieberman helped improve party discipline? I think it made it worse. All it did was give the conservatives more power to say “It’s either me or the Republicans, and at least with me you’ll occasionally get something you want”
You’re also assuming you can beat conservative Democrats on this issue, which is laughable. Even polls show half of registered Democrats support military trials. Do you think Bill Halter is going to come out in full support of a civilian trial? I’ll eat my shoe if he does. I guarantee he avoids this issue at all costs.
Also, we don’t know what the recommendation will say. It might say that there is no way they can get fair civilian trials in this country, which I wouldn’t doubt is true.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
It makes perfect fucking sense. The Admin wants to know how we’ll react if this comes to pass so they float this balloon. We’re doing exactly what they want us to do by reacting. They’ll use it in their calculus. If they decide to cave they’ll do it with full knowledge of how the left flank feels about it. If they decide against caving then they’ll have a small chit to use on the left flank for the next battle.
So, the Admin is floating a trial balloon and we’re doing them a favor by reacting. An alternative hypothesis is that some White House insiders are speaking to the press about stuff that they’re not supposed to be, in which case the Admin has much worse problems on its hands than what some bloggers are saying. Another alternative hypothesis is that the WaPo is making it all up whole cloth, in which case our entire country has much bigger problems than what some bloggers are saying. In any case, I see no compelling reason for us to keep quiet, and Matt Yglesias, whose post started this, is hardly the poster child for hysterical overreaction.
Dr. Morpheus
@Nick:
Well, you do have a point. I really don’t know what the best strategy is for this situation.
It seems “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” through and through.
I will say that not every election is going to be like Lamont/Lieberman. If Blanche Lincoln doesn’t win the primary I seriously doubt she’s going to run as an independent and even if she did I seriously doubt that she would win.
I guess my conclusion is that we have to look at each election carefully and plan accordingly.
But we still need party discipline. How to achieve that is very difficult to say.
Nick
@Dr. Morpheus:
Primaries work in areas where they can work (Donna Edwards)…the goal of enforcing party discipline in places where liberals can easily get elected is good, but there might not be a majority of districts or states where that’s true.
the end result is really to expand the territory where liberals can get elected.
I was at a Community Board meeting in New York City last month where marriage equality activists showed up. they didn’t show up to bitch that the community’s state senator voted against marriage equality and demand a primary (in a district where all it would do is get a Republican elected). They were there because “your Senator voted no because he says his constituents are opposed to marriage equality and so we’re here to talk to you and try to convince you that this is a good thing so he will vote for it next time”
THAT’s how you scare conservative Dems.
Mnemosyne
@Nick:
And even if you win, your supporters will still bitch you out because you didn’t make the stimulus big enough/grind Max Baucus’ face into the dirt/repeal DADT the instant you got into office instead of working to get the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense behind the repeal first.
That’s the part that drives me the most nuts — firebaggers treat even our wins as losses.
Nick
@Mnemosyne:
Did anyone read blogs like kos and OpenLeft on Monday when Bunning backed down from his filibuster and accepted a vote on extending unemployment benefits? They spun it as a Democratic capitualtion instead of a victory because they struck a “deal” which was for Bunning to allow his amendments up to a vote, both of which failed. As it were, Bunning was filibustering BECAUSE all the Dems were doing was allowing a vote on his amendments, both of which would fail.
So Democrats didn’t have give up anything, Bunning gave up everything, and STILL the blogsphere spun it as Democrats giving up.
Tell me why the President should take these people seriously again?
Mnemosyne
@Nick:
It could have, if Lieberman hadn’t decided to be a douchebag and run as an independent after the Democrats of Connecticut told him to get lost, and if the Republicans hadn’t completely deserted their candidate in order to get their pal Lieberman re-elected.
It made party discipline worse because it showed that douchebags like Lieberman will game the system to get what they want and trample everyone in their path to get it even after being rejected by voters, which tends to depress people and make them feel powerless. It’s not a bad strategy if you’re going up against honest players, but how many honest players are there among the “centrists” in the Democratic caucus?
Michael D.
I haven’t heard definitively that Obama will back off on trials. But if he does, he is caving to Republicans who believe that people in the US justice system are incapable of performing their jobs. They are fear-mongering assholes.
This is not a minor disagreement. This is a fundamental human rights issue…
If Obama backs off on this, he will have broken one of the most important promises he made during the campaign and violated the trust of millions of people who elected him for this very reason.
I’m one person among millions, of course. And I cannot vote. But that doesn’t mean I can’t work for a campaign. If he lets a bunch of war-mongering Republicans and pussy Democrats roll him like this, then I would be very open to a primary run against him in 2010. If this president is going to roll over and show his belly every time Republicans try to scare Americans and basically do what he’s told on issues like this, then he is a weak president and doesn’t deserve to be in the Oval Office.
Every news organization I’m hearing and reading is saying this is a done deal. Fuck this.
Republicans have used fear to make Americans believe there’s going to be a big terror attack if trials happen – and Americans are gullible enough to believe it. Get the fuck in front of the cameras and embarrass the Republicans for their lack of faith in the police officers and justice system they always defended until a few Muslims were brought before it.
Make them look like the pussified, candy-ass pissants they are.
Jamie
OK we have officially lost our minds as our country.
Jamie
Norway calling. They want their peace prize back.
Nick
@Michael D.:
Terrorism was like the 5th most important issue in the campaign and for those who voted on that very reason, McCain overwhelmingly won them…so in reality, he’s pleasing a lot more people that he’s disappointing.
Again, it’s not Republican he’s caving into…please come to the New York City area, you’ll find out it’s liberal Democrats too.
If you can find a camera to get in front of you, you’re more than welcome to do this…again, this has been done and it doesn’t work, mainly because it’s not about whether or not they have faith in our justice system and police officers, it’s about believing accused terrorists have no right to be brought before our awesome justice system and do not deserve the protection of our awesome police officers. It’s about them believing these people don’t deserve a fair trial.
Nick
@Mnemosyne:
Lieberman couldn’t have won with just Republican support. He got the support of one-third of Connecticut Democrats and a majority of Independents…constituencies Democrats need to win.
Mnemosyne
@Nick:
Lieberman basically turned himself into the unofficial Republican candidate, so people who never would have voted for him running as a Democrat voted for him. Independents are rarely truly independent — I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them voted Republican in the last race. Plus Lieberman got to enjoy all of the advantages of an incumbent even though he wasn’t running as a Democrat.
That’s somewhat beside the point, though, because the Lamont/Lieberman race is actually a very bad example of unsuccessfully primarying someone since we have no idea if Lamont could have won against Schlesinger. The election was basically a re-run of the primary, only Republicans and independents could vote for Lieberman, too.
If all of those Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had not had Lieberman to run to, who knows what the outcome would have been?
celticdragonchick
I would rather he used the Cruciatus curse, personally.