Great speech today President Obama

It is so refreshing to have a President that is intelligent and is willing to use common sense and sound judgment. For too long we have had presidents that blindly followed ideology or the polls. Finally we have a man that is honest, sincere and does what he knows to be right. A man that takes action only after careful deliberation and listening to all sides. You have the all the hall marks of greatness. Thanks for guiding our nation through its most troubled period.

I like it

depends on which part you look at.

If you look at how we prosecute terrorists it's good. If you look at how we prosecute Dick Cheney it's bad.

.... regardless of any short-term political ramifications, he wont have to worry about the polls. ;)

Does he realize, I wonder, that he will have very favorable ratings if he appoints a special prosecutor and stops being the defender in chief of the last administration?

:thumbsup:

the media reports different spins on the same story. He knocked it out of the park as usual. He's doing a great job with the hand he's been dealt.

.... of picking on him because "he talks too good."

Or in this case, "too flowery"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mcconnell-rips-obamas-flowery-national-security-speech-2009-05-21.html

At the risk of being crude, Barack Obama poops butterflies and it drives them BONKERS!!!! lol

The man can talk his way out of ANY problem and they know it. No matter whom they run in 2012, they're gonna get killed in every debate and they know it.

If I were them, I'd be looking for an out in the Constitution that would prevent them from having to run anyone next time. Just save their money and hope for the best in 2016.

Both are always complaining about President Obama, no matter what he does or says. Neither man has done anything important
that has made a discernable difference in The People's lives but they always feel they can quarterback the presidency somehow.

What do you think about the arguments presented by McConnell and Greenwald?

Obama's strongest card is his basic seriousness about what he is trying to do as president. He is really hard to caricature. For all the ways in which he is different from what we are accustomed to, perhaps the biggest difference is his absolute refusal to play for the news cycle, to allow ephemeral political gamesmanship to alter his strategic focus. He will be no one but himself, and the intelligence and thoughtfulness that he brings to the big questions of his time are what really expose his opponents. I have been reading the Republicans’ highly predictable (and in the past, typically effective) attacks in response to his national security speech. They just don’t work. The predictable sound bites about “a 9/11 mentality”, “making the country less safe”, “a flowery campaign speech”…all of these ring hollow when the guy is so obviously more serious, more reflective, more interested in actually solving problems, and profoundly more respectful of both his audience and the country’s institutions than his opponents. Greenwald's "pretty words" slam is merely another example of how he is mirroring the right in the ineffective sound bite department. The majority of Americans have become inured to petty and divisive characterizations during the past eight years which may in part explain why President Obama's approval numbers remain consistently high in the face of such criticism.

When the books are written about how this 47-year old black man with little Washington experience got elected president to lead this balkanized, still-race-conscious country, much will be said about demography, the litany of Bush failures, his speaking ability, and the skill of his campaign organization. What I hope will also be included is the raw power of his intellectual heft, and his insistence on avoiding shallowness, on forcing depth and rigor into public debate, and the deeply rooted patriotism and principle with which he brings it. That is the strength of his character, and it will endure far longer than the dazzling quality of his oratory or his deft political sense. It’s how he disarms his opponents and pushes us all to rethink our entire approach to politics. He may not change many minds on policy, but his approach to politics in itself is strengthening America, and it is a great act of leadership for which we should all be grateful.

<snip>

"Speaking to a Senate press conference, McConnell (Ky.) suggested Obama was ignoring the Bush administration’s success in preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and was dangerously close to putting his overseas popularity over America’s security."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3888370

The party of NO's leader talking about bush's "success in preventing a repeat of 9/11" when in reality the bush admin should never have let 9/11 happen IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And, then he goes on to lose his credibility again with whining about "President Obama's overseas popularity" when the president is popular right here at home with a fucking mandate.

mitch mcconnell is Emboldening the enemy.

of the February 26, 1993 terrorist attack. Why is that, I wonder?

Hmmm... so many past opponents of Barack Obama have tasted ashes after trying to denigrate the power of his words and his popularity with people. If this is the best effort Republicans can make to take down 44, then 2010 is going to wind up better than anyone expected.

This was a very very disturbing part of the speech. It's a place that not even Bush went to.

I am confused. I'm almost beginning to think that Obama's game plan is to act like Bush until some future time when everyone begins to see the folly of Bush's administration, and then...I don't know.

What a great man. But this is a serious issue that we need to discuss.

... though I suspect I have a fair guess.

For the sake of not putting words in your mouth (your keyboard's mouth?)... I'll ask you to specify which part of the speech you mean. I think I have some thoughts... but I'd like to be sure I'm not talking out of me arse...

Which part?

Rachel Maddow also discussed it on her show. I really can't speak for what Obama's going to do. It just sounds on face value like something utterly unconstitutional. Detaining people who may be innocent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5699619

... sorry, I just like convoluted spiral sentences like that.

Ok, here's my take. Yes, I can see how the thought of the indefinite detentions might be viewed as... uncomfortable-making. But, listening to the speech today, it occurred to me that Obama's justification had some merit.

I'll try to paraphrase, and then you can decide if it makes the Administration's thinking seem less spooky.

Obama was enumerating the various categories of Gitmo detainees, and their legal statuses. When he got to the last case, the case of those who could not be prosecuted (presumably because all evidence against them was tainted by torture, hearsay that even his tribunal system would laugh out the door... etc), but who nevertheless remain explicit/obviously dangerous persons (people who still swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden, those who have sworn that they will never stop fighting... etc.).

Now, here was the gist of the argument. Basically, Obama seems to be viewing these detainees as "POW"s, as they are still essentially "at war" with the US. He went on to say that he was trying to set some sort of structure up with Congress, to detain them while that status persisted... and to set up a mechanism by which Congress would have oversight over his actions as President.
Presumably, Obama is looking to reach some sort of agreement with Congress about how to define "POW"s fighting a war that doesn't involve a state vs. state war... and also a set of definitions in how to declare such a war to be ended (since without a state to surrender, it is hard to know when a "war on terror" is over).

That was my take anyway. I'd be interested to hear any other interpretations... not to mention issues anyone might have with the potential mechanisms that Congress might use to "declare hostilities with al Qaeda ended" (did "Mission Accomplished" banner qualify?)

I'm currently discussing this with a couple of people on Facebook. I must confess that part of the speech gave me pause. Your interpretation gives me food for though.

I pasted this passage

"Now, here was the gist of the argument. Basically, Obama seems to be viewing these detainees as "POW"s, as they are still essentially "at war" with the US. He went on to say that he was trying to set some sort of structure up with Congress, to detain them while that status persisted... and to set up a mechanism by which Congress would have oversight over his actions as President.
Presumably, Obama is looking to reach some sort of agreement with Congress about how to define "POW"s fighting a war that doesn't involve a state vs. state war... and also a set of definitions in how to declare such a war to be ended (since without a state to surrender, it is hard to know when a "war on terror" is over)."

into a conversation to try to shine a different light on it. I did credit you for the thought. I hope you don't mind, I just hadn't even thought of that and you summed it up well.

With some on the doubts I've had about other things that Obama's been doing lately... I wondered if I was maybe reading too much of what would make sense to me into my interpretation of what I heard.

I'd be interested in hearing criticisms of my take on what Obama said... because I wouldn't be surprised if someone might've caught a detail that would undermine my interpretation... if not, then that would at least leave some of us with a view at odds with everything that was said on the subject on Maddow tonight...

Who is going to make the decision on what happens to which detainees? Essentially it's passing the buck from a fair trial to a trial by some other means. Turly added something that I think has merit. And that is there are detainees who will win their trials. Those detainees will most likely be the ones who will never be allowed to see a trial.

If you want my take on things, I'll be very bold and say that our real problem is Congress. We already have a Constitution that held up under times far more challenging than some phony excuse for using our military. And as for terrorism, well, not only is there no such thing as "safe". And every time one drives their car, they are magnitudes more in danger than from any supposed terrorist threat. But we survived civil war, World wars, civil rights protests, Vietnam protests, and much more. Furthermore I would say that even if Sept. 11th 2001 was not an inside job, our biggest threats are from within our borders. Granted the WTC bombing wasn't. But we still didn't need to torture and detain people when that happened. I'm off topic here.

There is no legitimate reason to try these people (PEOPLE. Human beings. Some innocent. Perhaps all innocent.), in an honest court of law. A military tribunal is not the place for this. Now there is another avenue. We can simply deport them.

I still think that the case of John Walker Lind was a travesty of justice. When he was tried in a military court, we here in this forum were up in arms. If it had been an actual war, it would have been different.

But getting back to Congress. Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and many others, all stated the obvious. That after a dozen years of sanctions, and disarmament, Iraq posed zero threat to the US. What were they going to do, throw a bomb across the ocean? Haha. As if. So Congress gave Bush the ability to use force. But he was supposed to ask Congress to use it. Congress was remiss in giving him even the slightest ability to use force. That was the big disaster that I see. My point in mentioning this is that "Congress" and "oversight" now seem mutually exclusive. Republicans can't be trusted with anything. And Democrats have a number of members who aren't much different. I would not want my life in the balance with Congress making the decision. I'm just saying that in the event that Congress is in as shabby a condition as I feel it is, they are part of the problem. Not that the judicial system is much better. Which also brings up an interesting point. How would detainees get a fair trial? Who would their peers be?

It's a mess. We should have impeached. We SHOULD have recounted the votes and let Gore be president. We should have not allowed electronic voting machines, so Kerry could have taken office. It's more than a mess.

And the bottom line is none of the above. The buck stops with the American people. Congress really does represent us. Had we marched in the streets demanding the things I mentioned above, Congress would have had no alternative but to act in our favor.


So who is going to decide what happens to which detainees? And how would they even get a fair trial? Those are my concerns.

unbelievable. If he was acting like bush we wouldn't be having any conversation at all. The people would stay there until they die. I don't understand what the alternative should be. Just open the doors and release them? Whether we like it or not, everybody there isn't innocent...and after the last few years the one's that were innocent, probably don't care too much for the USA. So what exactly should be done?

using it on Bush/Cheney!

went after the captian for going to fast. Obama is trying to stabilize the nation before addressing the people that sent it out of control.

:hi:

:kick:

No wonder her ratings are tanking.

on the left will complain.

what you think of her trashing to President's speech?

Rachel Maddow rachel@msnbc.com

like so many she has enough brains to sound and act witty, while lacking the deeper understanding and intelligence to grasp the complexities and nuances of Obama's position. That's why she is an entertainer on television and not a policy maker.

Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

The sort of person we OUGHT to have as a President. I'd almost forgotten what it was like to have a real President, and not just someone pretending to be President.

eom

But unfounded statements do play well here.

Obama speech here...



and from Kos ....

He is not shutting the door on prosecutions. He could have shut the door today, but he did not.

He's going to let this Department--a group of attorneys who cherish their independence and role as protectors of the Constitution and the laws of this nation--look into the matter.

we know that the Department is already looking into the actions of its own, former attorneys (And here I must state the opinion that I think that for as much as Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Projectis to be applauded, her views regarding the effectiveness, aims, and intent of OPR should be taken with a small grain of salt. Because she was the subject of an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation by the previous Administration, she may have feelings about the Office that are colored by her own bad experiences with the Office in its previous incarnation, and as it does not exist today).

Whether it goes beyond OPR, and whether DOJ attorneys looking at the law decide that prosecutions are warranted or worth further examination remains to be seen.

But Obama left the door open.

That's what I took from Obama's speech.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/21/733145/-%5BUpdated%5D-A-Government-Attorneys-Take-on-Obamas-Speech

He's leaving it to Congress to give a shit.

Hopefully they will. If not... hopefully the fuckers won't ever catch me on any torturable offense...

Congress hasn't had a very good record on holding anybody responsible for anything. Unless, of course, GM counts.

n being self righteous, the first thing one should do is make sure they are not fabricating information. Unfortunately, your interpretation of facts (twisting them) reveals a whole lot about you; a bias against this president that is built in, facts be damned.

It is one thing to be critical and to have an opinion....but it is quite another to state as facts plain old lies, exaggerations and the twisting to whatever is found to put this President in the worse light possible. It makes one no better than those in the previous administration who were in office and those who assisted them in forcing facts to fit their fiction.

So let's make it clear; when LooseWilly is discussing this President, he will conveniently force the facts to fit his fiction.

and is setting things up in such a way to be a guide for the future.

No, that isn't prosecuting or investigating the torture. I'm disappointed. You're more than disappointed, apparently.

But try not to gloss over the order on not torturing that he passed, and that he has used the bullypulpit to spread the word about it. That is not the same thing as ignoring torture.

And, BTW, there's a lot more going on in the country besides the torture issue. Aren't you glad about the 2 million acres he recently set aside as a preserve? 2 million acres that won't be concreted and developed with Wal-Marts and mcmansions.

Being a good steward of the environment and our natural resources is every bit as important to me as the torture issue.

as for now, that is just a fantasy scenerio.

In my book that makes Mr."O" a bad president.

He used his intelligence to bamboozle the average American who doesn't realize that it is Congress, not the President, who creates new laws. And he used tortured logic to explain how indefinite detention is, um, possible necessary. He avoided using the dreaded torture word except when he boasted that America Does Not Torture, except that we do, we did and we need to face up to what we did and what we are continuing to do.

President Obama is an amazing orator, but he used his skills for bad ends today. I adore our President but I am very angry at him right now.