Maddow: Why compromise with GOP 'in hilarious disarray'?

[BigBearJohn]

With a mandate from the voters, Barack Obama would appear to have an open field to put through his own agenda without worrying about the opposition. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, however, is concerned that Obama is too set on finding consensus to take a hard stand on an issue as contentious as war crimes.

"Why is the President-elect with strong majorities in Congress and the Republican party in utter, hilarious disarray, acting already like he has to fear and accommodate the Republicans in order to get anything done?" Maddow wondered on Monday. "While Obama has repeated his stand to close the prison at Guantanamo and reassert American laws against torture, Newsweek and Salon.com both report that now he may not push for prosecutions of Bush officials."

"Are you seeing too much kumbaya here?" Maddow asked her guest, Slate editor Dahlia Lithwick. "He seem to be making good on the let's-all-come-together part of his message, but it seems like he's the one doing the compromising without much call for it."

Lithwick agreed, noting that "I've been waiting to hear war crime tribunals really get sexy," but instead, "we're hearing an awful lot coming out of the campaign that's saying, 'Oh, we want to turn the page, we don't want to look bloodthirsty and ruthless.'"

"If you don't want to expend capital on war crimes, what do you want to expend it on?" Lithwick asked.

SOURCE: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Maddow_Why_wont_Obama_pursue_war_1125.html

[rockymountaindem]

1. Excellent question n/t

[Tom Kitten]

2. And therein lies the root of most of our troubles

No one is held to account anymore...in the old days this was called exposing corruption.

[gravity]

3. You don't want to give the Republicans ammunition to use against you

If you can get some support for your proposals from moderates, you gain credibility and political capital instead of expending it.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Idiotic. Clinton tried that and they impeached him.

If he had let the investigations of Bush I go forward, the Republican party would be just about dead by now.

[gravity]

5. Times have changed

but if you don't believe me, Obama will prove you wrong during his presidency.

[Jim Sagle]

14. Hope and 75 cents change will get you a Trib here in Chicagoland.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Yeah, I keep hearing that

Despite scant performance results and a rigid habit of ducking controversy, Mr. Obama's supporters have consistently chorused about how he's really going to step up to the plate and we simply have to "believe" and "trust". Fine. Time's up.

I give him the benefit of the doubt, and he's got a hell of a hard row to hoe, but he's about to accept one of the toughest jobs there is, and because its so amply advertised as being so, one shouldn't have too much sympathy for the one with the reins.

Just like the recurring refrain from Bob Fosse and Robert Alan Aurthur's character Joe Gideon in "All That Jazz" (played by Roy Scheider): "It's showtime!"

Things are different now. He'll change his ways. Just hope. Believe. Trust.

Fine. Time's a'wastin'.

What he has to fight against is a deeply entrenched system in extreme decline: massive power is clinging with raptor claws to its various positions of unassailable power, and it'll take a courageous champion to break these chokeholds. A situation like this calls for someone skilled at fighting giants, and much as he may well develop this trait, it's hardly his standard schtick.

If this seems too demanding, then let's address this most important reality: he's soon to be in the driver's seat, and he owes it to 6.5 billion people to work like a dog and do what is best for the MOST, not the fewest. He claimed by his candidacy that he was up to it, and it's showtime.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

12. sea change

I think you're right, but Republicans had momentum in 1994. We have it on our side this time. Many, many Republicans are not happy with Bush or with their elected officials. So now is the perfect time to lead by example, and win these people over for life. ("These people" being independents and moderate Republicans).

[gravity]

17. The republicans have ran out of ideas finally

They tried them all, and they didn't work.

The Democrats are in an excellent position to have a long lasting majority, as long as they don't mess it up.

[MrModerate]

6. I take a back seat to no one in my loathing of George Bush . . .

his crimes, and his henchmen. In a just world, the lot of them would be in chains before the bar at The Hague.

But I'm extremely ambivalent about what Obama should do about Bush's crimes. There's a real danger of descending into a fever swamp in pursuit of these crooks, fools, and sadists. I don't fear the 'Licans, because I don't see them getting their act together any time soon. But the risk of losing the American people -- who are very upbeat about the hopefulness inherent in Obama's victory -- worries me a lot.

Maybe for the greater good, the schmucks get away with it (outside of public disgust). I just wish the Dems has shown the balls (plus the ability to count on their fingers) and gone after the Bush impeachment following the election of 2006.

[MadMaddie]

15. I will have to disagree with you my friend

You see in the early 1970's for the "Greater Good", Rummy, Cheney and others that were involved with Nixon were not prosecuted for their crimes.

Those same men, whose contempt for the Constitution plotted and planned their way back into the * WH. their plan was to dismantle the Constitution, destroy the middle class, attack civil rights, enrich the filthy rich, start never ending wars to enrich their contractor friends.....and the list goes on and on.

In order for this country to move forward and break from the past these men must be prosecuted for Treason, Crimes against Humanity, Fraud, Theft, I am betting Tax Evasion, destruction of government property (emails) and many more crimes.

The Key is to Follow the money......

Once the whole truth of their real crimes has been exposed Americans will demand that they be prosecuted.

[MrModerate]

18. And I also want the opportunity to personally spit in the eye . . .

of everyone of the loathsome band.

I just don't want (I think) it driven from the White House because retribution (deserved or not) would seriously interfere with governing. Maybe it would be cleaner to sweep 'em up and drop 'em at The Hague.

[MadMaddie]

19. I would settle for the Hague.....

They shouldn't walk free though, they should always be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. Like the hiding Nazi's did after WWII.......Rove should be on that list....

[dflprincess]

21. Excellent points

I would add that for some of these people it's really their "third stike". Not only were they involved with Nixon, but also up to the necks in Iran-Contra - another crime not prosecuted for the "greater good".

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Sadly Rachel Maddow doesn't get it

Barack Obama said for over a year that he wants to bring the country together. We aren't red and blue America, but the United States of America.

Completely alienating a large segment of the electorate without compromise goes against this message.

Rachel Maddow hasn't been paying attention to what Obama has actually been saying. He said countless times that he will reach across the aisle as President.

Rachel needs to stop throwing a temper tantrum like a petulant child. Maybe she wouldn't be so shocked if she actually cleaned out her ears and LISTENED to Obama.

Rachel has revenge on her mind and Obama does not. He wants to move forward. Obama has said that he intends to end torture and I'm confident he will.

[jrockford]

8. Maybe you should clean out your ears

She didn't say he didn't plan on ending torture, it has to do with the prosecution of war criminals.

Countless speaking of reaching across the aisle doesn't mean letting people get away with mass murder.

You let them get away when you have a chance to do something about it, in my opinion, you may as well of acted with them. Just aiding them in covering it up.

[dflprincess]

20. Exactly

not prosecuting these thugs would make Obama and his administration accessories after the fact.

Why do some assume prosecution of these criminials would alienate the Repubicans who were already so disgusted with their party and Bush that they voted for Obama? If all their crimes were laid out, it would put the final nail in the GOP coffin. The only ones who will be left in the party will be the Palin faction - and nothing Obama does or doesn't do will win them over.

Not prosecuting them is far more apt to alienate voters as it will look like the same old shit.

[Roy]

11. No.. Rachel does get it!

Exposing corruption, especially when it has cost so many lives and broken families is absolutely the right thing to do.
Exposing and prosecuting corruption is not the same as a witch hunt. The witch hunt is what people don't want to see. To suggest people don't want to see justice served is ludicrous.

If these people are not exposed, you leave them with credibility, this is what imo is the most dangerous part.

With credibility they are left in position to rise to power again emboldened and even more nefarious means, after all we will have taught them through our inaction that there will be no exposure nor accountability.

How many more lives should be ruined or lost only for the myth of bi-partisanship?

[gratuitous]

13. Golly, I'm sorry

Systematic torture, driving people insane with endless imprisonment and "enhanced" interrogation techniques, holding people prisoner without charge, trial or access to any attorneys, launching two wars of aggression and empire against other countries without cause, spying on its own citizens, looting the Treasury, and bringing the country into global disrepute. I don't know what I was thinking! It must have been a temper tantrum. And petulance. And, and revenge.

Now I see it all so very clearly. I just need to let bygones be bygones, and quit wallowing in the past by seeking justice. Time to move forward and ignore the thieves, torturers and murderers in our midst.

[malaise]

16. Is it revenge to punish people for crimes?

I don't get it.

[fascisthunter]

23. The Law is Not to be a Political Tool

Holding Criminals Accountable is never a Bad Thing, unless you don't mind creating the worst kind of precedent this country has ever seen.

If you think Bush was bad, just wait...

[meowomon]

9. Some things should never be compromised.

No waterboarding/torture. Ever.

[RethugAssKicker]

10. This is exactly what I've been saying...but everyone here

thinks I'm vengeful.. People MUST be held accountable for their crimes,
and stupidity!...

I understand all the moderate viewpoints...but I completely disagree...
We must march forward with a liberal,progressive agenda.... and stop trying to compromise with the Rethugs who have proven themselves to be tyrannical and imperialistic.

[TexasObserver]

22. Rachel is usually pretty sharp, but that comment was off base.

NOW is the best time to take advantage of the chaos in the GOP. Obama cannot benefit from taking hard lines that solidify GOP opposition to him and his programs. He needs to pick off at least one third of the GOP in both houses of congress, so that his programs are perceived as having bi partisan support and the backing of 70% of the country.

[noise]

25. It would be better to have the most

divided political atmosphere in the history of the Universe than let the torture go without real accountability. If the GOP (and some Democrats) want to make Obama's Presidency miserable in order to defend torture then let them. Why on earth should Obama care what torture advocates and war crimes defenders have to say? If there is something else going on--back room deals, blackmail, etc. then Obama should inform the public. When will one elected official draw a line in the sand and stop pretending that torture was required and was done in good faith?

Where was the good faith?

The very fact that Mr. Martinez, a career narcotics analyst who did not speak the terrorists’ native languages and had no interrogation experience, would end up as a crucial player captures the ad-hoc nature of the program. Officials acknowledge that it was cobbled together under enormous pressure in 2002 by an agency nearly devoid of expertise in detention and interrogation.

Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogation