With all due respect,

[leftofthedial]

why is President Obama afraid to use the correct word, "torture," to describe torture? Why does he now sound like he is reading a CIA press release when he talks about torture?

Also, why does he avoid the issue when talking about holding criminals accountable for their crimes. At least now he has moved beyond the silly "looking forward" non-rationale, but now he blames the call for justice on "the anger of some." It is not about anger. It is about the legal responsibility of our leaders to enforce the law. It is about ensuring that the next wave of repuke criminals does not view bush's crimes as the new baseline from which they can safely push the envelope even farther, as they have done since Nixon. It is about restoring America's reputation, both internationally and domestically.

I'm also still not happy that he is hiding behind the troops on the torture-photo-release issue. Our enemies don't need these photos to "inflame" themselves or to recruit new followers. They already know we are a torture state that protects its torturers. If their anti-US passions wane, we will oblige by murdering another village full of civilians with bombs and missiles. The safety-of-the-troops excuse is nonsense; it speaks ill of President Obama that he uses them as cover.


Obama is NOT Bush. I agree with Obama about closing Gitmo. I agree with him about our no-torture policy going forward. I agree with him about many things. But so far he is dead wrong about how to handle those who did torture. What is he afraid of? His explanations do not ring true.

[babylonsister]

1. He did use it...

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture “serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us.” And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration – including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community – that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong – in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

[leftofthedial]

2. not when he was talking about it.

only when he quoted someone else talking about it.

he meticulously avoided it when defending his own policies or stating his own opinions.

[Lorax7844]

19. The thing is until

Obama has cover by more than 60% of the population on prosecuting Cheney it won't happen. Public outcry must be deafening, so far it is not. Only a small majority support even investigations, even less support definite prosecution. Changing public opinion is up to us.

[denem]

3. Neither you nor I know what is going on in the DOJ.

[Terran]

22. Well, unfortunately, there's this as an indication:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3887400&mesg_id=3887400

"...Attorney General Eric Holder sat by silently while the president curtly dismissed the idea that his Justice Department should criminally prosecute at least one Bush administration official for torture, if only as a symbolic move to demonstrate that actions such as waterboarding will never be tolerated again."

[Solomon]

4. LOL

That was quick. I predicted as others were gushing over what a good speech it was that it wouldn't take long for DU to find quibbles with words. LOL

"He won't say the word 'torture'". LOL There is absolutely nothing this guy can do right. Nothing.

[leftofthedial]

7. did you read the last paragraph of my post?

or do you just conveniently ignore anything that doesn't let you strike your pose du jour?

[Blue_Roses]

8. it's always the same ones too...

it's like they take one thing that he could have said, but didn't, OR DID say and shouldn't have...:eyes:

It's got to be exhausting to be that negative. I know it is just to read it on here.

[babylonsister]

9. Oh, yea. We have some winners/whiners around here. nt

[TwilightZone]

14. Preconceived notions make a great prism.

It's easy to find what one is looking for when one places something where one expects to find it.

[tridim]

5. He has used the word "torture" several times to describe what BushCo did..

However I bet he's just using the legal word now to maintain legal consitency when the trials begin.

[berni_mccoy]

6. He used the word 4 times. Please, feel free to fail again though.

[leftofthedial]

when discussing his own opinions and defending his policies,

he meticulously avoided the word and used "enhanced interrogation" or "enhanced interrogation techniques" every time.

He used the word "torture" only when quoting someone else or referring to their claims.

Context is a more reliable friend than Word's find feature.

[berni_mccoy]

12. DUDE! WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU? Here's HOW he used that term:

"First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America."

He's DISMISSING it as a valid term for torture.

[TwilightZone]

15. Well, there you go with that context thing.

[leftofthedial]

17. he dismissed it so thoroughly, in fact, that it was the only term HE

used from then on in his speech...

:rofl:

[BadgerKid]

10. Separation of powers?

I think it likely he has seen documents revealing genuine torture,and, if so, he could be leaving it to the court system to pass judgment on whether they satisfy some legal definition of torture.

Frankly, I think he's being too passive.

[leftofthedial]

11. "passive" is a nice word for it.

[ChiciB1]

13. WORDS... Just WORDS! I Won't Apologize For Thinking That I Haven't

seen much change or leadership! And if I'm called a whiner for it... I really don't care... but I DID care about CHANGE & HOPE last November!

Name calling is simply that, name calling!

[CakeGrrl]

16. He referred to "so-called enhanced interrogation techniques"

taking some validity out of that euphemism.

[annabanana]

18. RudePundit has it right:

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws."

Do you get that? President Obama is telling the Congress not to be punk ass bitches about investigating, that the legislative branch should keep the executive branch honest, that punishing crimes is what we're supposed to do. Obama used this speech on national security to say that the way to be safe is to defend what makes America American and for everyone to do their fucking jobs.
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Maybe you should actually pay attention next time.

You'd make less of a fool of yourself.

Or are you trying to do that on purpose.

[Bucky]

21. He's a politician in the small-d democratic tradition. He responds to public pressure

If you want different policies, you gotta make more noise. DU is one place to do it, but there are more effective venues than here.