Friday, May 22, 2009

Looking Back

And another thing...

"Let's not look back," they say. Need to move forward. Said by the party that spent tens of months and dozens of millions trying to impeach Bill Clinton. And, from one point of view, they were right then but not now. If crimes are suspected, part of the deal is looking into it. How, exactly, do you march forward if you don't know whence you are coming? Why prosecute the guy who robbed your store, or raped your wife? It's in the past. Those cops: what a bunch of whiners. What's done is done.

Of course this is way bigger than lying about a blow job. We're talking about killing prisoners, taking us to an unnecessary war on false pretenses. Big stuff, you'd think.

Like virtually all the Republican talking points of late, this one is made of sand, built on sand. I accept that it's not black and white, given the politics. I understand why President Obama is reluctant: he has lots to do to clean up the mess, and even without this, he's encountering resistance to pretty much everything he does. Reversing direction like Dick Cheney from his draft board, Senate Republicans have decided there's nothing like a good old filibuster, especially for judges. No wonder they don't want to look back: just a couple of years ago they were saying such a thing was unconstitutional and a threat to our very existence as a democracy.

What's particularly disingenuous is that such talking points are based on the idea that the electorate is stupid. Obama addresses us as if we are adults, capable of carrying a thought beyond one line of small words. To the Rs, we're idiots, bamboozle-bait. Not that it's certain they're the ones that are wrong. It's easy to forget that Joe the Plumber was made god-like. McCain put him up there; but it was the people who ate it up, and the media, and the RWS™.

And then there's this. So there you go.


  1. Don't get your complaint. BO is the one saying we shouldn't look back. But he's the one always referring to the past. He should get on with it.

    Clinton was actually the pres. No one impeached him after he left office.

    Not blow job lying--lying under oath, denying justice to another person. But lying doesn't bother dems, does it?

    Why all the complaining? Why not just shut up and govern? Because BO can't even control his own party. It's the Senate dems who shut down his shut down plan. Complain about Harry Reid--the guy the dems in the Senate elected as the best of their lot.

    Complain to Nancy Pelocchio, elected by the House dems as the best of their lot. She's calling the BO administration liars.

    Obviously, the best of the dem lot isn't all that good. maybe that's why you complain about the Republicans--nothing in the dem party to boast about.

    "False pretenses" it. At least you don't whine about the 2000 election anymore (but that took about 8 years to get over. Ask Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore about that. They were pretty gung-ho in 2001--just like Nancy Pelocchio wanting to make sure we waterboarded enough prisoners.

  2. Here--this will save everyone a lot of time. Very clear, and succinct. And right on.

  3. Same guy as before. Your hero, I guess. A Brit, too. Very open minded of you.

    "Clear, succinct," and full of shit. Nothing new. Buys the "policy differences" meme which is even more stupid than the "looking back" one. Unpersuasive in the extreme. But hey, it's not as if there still aren't twenty-percenters around. If he's gospel to you, so be it. I couldn't disagree more; at least I said why and gave facts to back it up. Your guy has opinions. Me, too.

    You don't buy false pretenses? WMD? Links to al Queda? Greeted as liberators? Over in less than 6 months? Paid for by their oil? Okay. And pigs are flying.

    Your comments are a waste of time. I don't know why I dignify them with responses.

    P.S: I have no idea if I'm responding to one person or two, because neither comment has any sort of identifier. May as well be one: same invective with no basis. When did Pelosi call the Obama administration liars? The CIA briefing was years ago. Complain about Reid? Do you read my posts? Obama "the one" saying not to look back? Hardly, if by your phrasing you mean he's the only one. And I addressed it. Can't control his party? Dems have disagreements? You think that's a problem why? Because Boehner has his party in lock step with stupidity? I'll take mine, thanks.

    Anyhow, as you may have noticed, when people disagree reasonably and with thought-provoking ways of backing it up, I'm delighted to engage. Your kind of stuff is stupid, and no amount of response will change that. Go outside and play, okay?

  4. Hey Dr. Sid can I add you to my blogroll? (Partially for my convinience bc I just got google chrome and can't figure out the favorites? (And partially for whatever other not frequently stated reasons))

  5. xxn: of course. The more the merrier. Thanks.

  6. Dr S.. both parties go on witch hunts at every opportunity and squander our money. I was seriously disappointed in Clinton for getting a Lewinsky that way... but I never wanted him impeached. That would've hurt the country.

    Horrible role model too.

    Anonymous 3:36 -thank you for posting the British article. I bookmarked it.

    Dr S. -I really appreciated that speech of Cheney's.

    They never should have been trying to go after the administration on this.

    And Nancy Pelosi... Oh my gosh!

    Liar, liar pants on fire! She was twitching like a nervous rabbit. She doe not deserve the honor of that position.

    I know you may not agree with me... but if a republican had LIED about their knowledge AND knocked the CIA like she did last week... this would still be plastered all over every network and they'd be screaming for the speaker to step down.

    That she would have the audacity to call for prosecution of the lawyers, disbarring them and others involved in water boarding decisions when she knew full well what was going on... is reprehensible. USING HER LOGIC -then SHE should be stripped of her position, as well as having any political influence. I think political corruption is reason enough to remove her. If they were to prosecute anyone...then she should be prosecuted too. And she is 3rd in line to take over if there is a national emergency?

    I know that both dems and reps do dishonest things for their own gain. Both sides do.

    But gee whiz... it seems that early on...there isn't an honest one in the administration. Usually it takes a while.

    I especially liked what Cheney said that they were busy trying to find out the enemy secrets instead of exposing our national secrets.

    I just want our country to be safe and I am concerned that while well intentioned...Obama is naive regarding national security.

    I also think he now knows it is one thing to criticize a sitting administration... and an entirely different situation knowing the facts.

    And regardless of how annoying fox news or Cheney, etc is to him... he needs to stay above all that and not react. He IS the president.

    And I am glad Cheney came out and defended the decisions that were made. It's very easy to look back. It could NOT have been easy to make decisions back then.

    Who ever would've thought this country would be hit... never mind as badly as it was? And we did not know what else could be coming our way.

  7. Seaspray: you seem unwilling to address the facts that torture led to false information, and was used to try to justify invading Iraq. The evidence is everywhere that it was more harmful than helpful, and yet you still are glad Cheney spoke up, and think Obama is naive.

    And not just torture: abandoning Afghanistan to invade Iraq: it couldn't be more clear what a disastrous decision that was. And yet you're unconvinced. It'll never change, but it's disappointing. As opposed to my anonymous commenters, you seem actually to have given some thought to the matter. The British article? Not unlike your heroes, Hannity and Beck: opinion with no factual basis. But that's what you seem to like. I wish it weren't so.

    P.S. Clinton WAS impeached. He wasn't convicted.

  8. PPS: we don't yet know the truth regarding what Pelosi was told. But we DO know that the CIA has lied to congress in the past, and that Republicans have led the charge in showing it. Hoekstra. Look it up. You've done just what the Rs have hoped you'd do: buy the idea that it's about Pelosi and not about what was done. You're their perfect audience. I'm sorry to say it, but it's true.

  9. Your awfully churlish when the point get close to the mark, aren't you? You used the word "stupid" twice! Junior college education, maybe?

    CIA briefing years ago. And this means what? She forgot? Leon Panetta is the pres' guy, and he says they didn't lie. Maybe BO should fire him?

    Here's the deal--we're good with the waterboarding. And so was Pelocchio. And BO has all but said he'd do it too. In fact, for all the whining about Bush, BO has adopted almost all the anti-terrorism stuff. That has to hurt, doesn't it?

    Meanwhile, in spite of winning, the dems are proving unable to govern. Dow is still down. How long can that be Bush's fault? BO's first real management job--outside of his entry level, president job--is GM and they're declaring bankruptcy and taking your grandkids' money with them. At least BO was able to pay off his masters--BigUnion--first.

    The dems are a sorry lot, aren't they? Nancy "Most Ethical Congress Ever" has failed drastically. They've all failed.

    And we are less safe. I hope there isn't a day coming soon when you're wishing for the competence of Bush and Cheney running things again. But I fear it will happen.

  10. Oops--"you're" in the first sentence. I don't see well sometimes.

  11. Anonymous --

    Who's defending Pelosi? If she knew torture was taking place, she had an obligation to report it. She wouldn't be as guilty as the torturers, but still guilty.

    "Why all the complaining?" I don't know how to say this without sound pedantic, but: many of us prize the rule of law, and regret terribly the loss of our moral standing in the world.

    "the best of the dem lot isn't all that good. maybe that's why you complain about the Republicans"

    Let's have a contest. We'll make lists of disgraced congressmen from the last eight years. Surely you're up for this right?

    "Junior college education, maybe?" Yes, Schwab left off after junior college.

    "we're good with the waterboarding." No, you are good with waterboarding, because you're a sadist or halfwit. The US tried and executed Japanese for this same act after WWII. No matter what Pelosi says, it's definitely torture and thus definitely criminal.

    "BO has all but said he'd [waterboard] too." No.

    "The dems are proving unable to govern. Dow is still down. How long can that be Bush's fault?" At least until the trillions of dollars of risible subprime mortgages underwritten during Bush's admin get shaken out. Then we'll need a generous allowance for the fact that Bush borrowed as much money as all other presidents combined.

    "BO's first real management job--outside of his entry level, president job--is GM and they're declaring bankruptcy" this is Obama's fault how?

    Actually it's partly yours. You all, the champions of free enterprise, are killing the meritocracy that made this country great. Social mobility plummeted under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The people making decisions now are increasingly the children of rich people, while the Henry Fords and Bill Gateses flip burgers.

    That is the agenda of the Republican decision makers. The rest of you are marionettes who twitch whenever you are told "terrorist!" or "gay marriage!" or "they're taking your guns!" I wonder which you are.

    "I hope there isn't a day coming soon when you're wishing for the competence of Bush and Cheney running things again."

    Bush is a singularly incompetent person. He was a poor student, guardsman, and businessman and a drunk for half his life. For those of us who value one's accomplishments, he was sure to be a failed president, and he was. When 19 Islamic zealots, 11 of whom were Saudis, and two of whom were linked to the wife of the Saudi ambassador, attacked NYC, Bush's response was to invade Iraq, an uninvolved, unthreatening, and relatively secular nation, which now seems destined to be a zealous one. He declared said war over in 2003. His immediate response to 911 was to do nothing, later claiming he didn't want to worry some children. He received a presidential daily briefing entitled something like "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", which mentioned airplanes as weapons, the month before 911 and did nothing in response. Upon invading Iraq he disbanded the military, ensuring a supply of disillusioned soldiers. It's hard to conceive a less competent response, even from a traitor.

    --Sam Spade

  12. Is that Rachel Ray?????

    5 minutes?? I wouldn't last 5 SECONDS with that...

    My compliments, Sid


    My word verification is
    "Luvs Cok"

    Damn you,


  13. Let's see...Bush's record.

    7 years of growth, DOW up 4,000 points. No more attacks on US soil.

    Just say "Thank you, Mr. Bush" and get it over with.

  14. "We'll make lists of disgraced congressmen from the last eight years."

    There's disgraced Republicans. The difference is that disgraced Republicans are hounded out of office by other Republicans who has moral values.

    Disgraced dems are promoted and honored by the immoral dem party.

    Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, Dodd, Byrd, Feinstein, Frank. It would appear that a qualification for dem leadership is immoral behavior.

    Oh yeah--tax cheat Geithner needs to be on that list, doesn't he?

  15. Dr S -I think we should have complete transparency *if* it won't compromise our national security.

    If they want to release all the negatives... then surely they should release the info demonstrating how it helped protect more innocent Americans on American soil. They brought it to us on 9/11 and have been since the early 90s.

    What they are doing by only releasing the negative info is like withholding information in a disclosure packet. You need ALL the information to accurately asses the facts and defend in a legal case.

    The underhanded law officials ..release inflammatory or erroneous info and they withhold the facts/evidence that would absolve the accused...all so they can win...deceitfully win for their personal gain.

    It's illegal. It's wrong. But it's done all the time.

    And it seems this administration tried to do the same.

    I appreciate what anonymous 9:01 said. Yes republicans have done bad things. But the DO get called to task and ousted.

    The dems..there all STILL there!

    I am all for another party that will not be sucked into the dirty politics. that will have honor and values and actually work for the good of the people and this great country.

    And to someone above who blamed Bush for underwriting of bad loans on his watch..yes it started with Clinton and then Bush. Bush and McCain tried to warn them. Go check out the Utube w/Barney Frank vehemently defending fannie and freddie and challenging and accusing the republicans that dared to question these organizations. Other dems vehemently defended too.

    Bush spent to much and added... but he did not cause fannie/freddie debacle.

    I think ALL politicians should get up on the rooftops and sound the alarms when they see these things are wrong!


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts