Change you can believe in

In his defense, the one thing Democrats can never afford to look weak on is national security. That's what eats the headlines, and that's what Republicans like to wave around. I'm still pretty pissed that the Dems continue to be spineless and repeat the mistakes they made in the 60's, bowing down to fascists on the Right to win the middle.

He should tell us when he plans to bomb another country then, maybe while wearing a cowboy hat on a Texas ranch and using words like "crusade" and "evil." I hate hearing about these things after the second botched air strike.

In defense of the Dems, they have no leadership.

It's just a sad day and, believe it or not, even I am surprised by this level of blatant rightwingatude.

Baleen, while I agree that within the register of political vying between parties Democrats must strategically behave in such a way or at least appear to be "tough on national security," that limiting the discussion to this register is troublesome.

It would seem that if gambits by political parties are made at the cost of the political system they are to uphold, our concern should not be the relevance of a policy to the drama between parties but to the policy's effect on the system itself.

baleen, so if you met the family members of these people...

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagallery.php?mghash=a69ba84 843a6c778938bd59b65a08f63&mggal=6

or these people...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/03/nine-b oys-and-a-war.html

...would you try to assuage their fury with Obama and the U.S. by saying, "Democrats can't afford to look weak on national security."

How many innocent civilians need to be blown to pieces and burned alive in order the for Democrats to not look weak on national security?

Baleen was merely adding a point to the conversation, I think, rather than personally advocating a position.

Well, he did say, "In his defense," instead of merely pointing out that the fact that Democrats don't want to appear weak on national security.

That's an inarguable fact. Obama's actions regarding civil rights and military action have, however, been indefensible.

That said, baleen, if you weren't actually defending Obama, I apologize for my hasty response.

Yeah, I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying it's the system that we have and it pisses me off.

And I have donated profusely to the Democrats and campaigned on their behalf, and I wrote some angry letters, let me tell you!

I have to disagree. Guantanamo Bay is a debacle beyond comprehension. People imprisoned in a facility deemed outside or any legal jurisdiction, and ruled not enemy combatants or prisoners of war. The Bush administration essentially ruled these detainees to be inhuman when they declared that the torture and indefinite detention of them in no way conflicted with US views on human rights.

How do you remedy a situation like that? Trials are largely out of the question. And not just because Republicans are repeatedly blocking any attempt to integrate the detainees into the legal system. Don't forget that there was no initial plan on ever trying these people so any actual evidence against them was either so poorly obtained/handled it's inadmissible, or it's simply non-existent.

This proposal doesn't sound perfect by any means. It does, however, sound like a step in a direction away from where the Bush administration and it's supporters have taken this country. While I would love nothing more than to see this train wreck fixed now, I'm also aware that that's not how it works. Human rights changes in this country are, and always will be, slow, mostly implemented through legislation, and fought against tooth and nail by people waving flags calling themselves real Americans.

Yes, being a President is hard. Obama's aware that Guantanamo Bay is a prison for vile terrorist masterminds and simultaneously a political quagmire of human/American rights violation. It's a dirty job that needs to be done, whether these prisoners are secretly killed and disposed of or imprisoned indefinitely. One thing's not going to happen under ANY President: they're not going to let sworn suicide bombers loose on their watch. This was an attempt at a solution to the rights issue, and it was flawed. I'm glad Maddow pointed it out yet I refuse to denounce a guy I approve of as President and want to re-elect because of a flawed yet reasonable compromise.

What the fuck?

what revdrew said

well fuck why is this showing up here now?

dancingshadow you're off the national desk... go back to metro.

Oh... SNAP. Snap-diddly-snap-snappity-snapsnapsnap! Snappilysnapsnappitus-snap-snappitron-snap-snapidocious. Snappiroon-snappirun-snappisperlock-snap-snappitown.

so we've been living with lies and hypocrisy from our elected leaders for two years?

...


TRY TWO-HUNDRED YEARS BITCHES

You should try and get the people who make GWAR's stuff do do costumes based on supreme court justices.

Antonin Scalia, Roger B. Taney, John Marshall Harlan, Clarance Thomas, with giant prehensile silver penis-tentacle.

You could make it work.