American Politics: the Lost Generation

[Shryke]

He's trying to pretend that it was BUSH who stopped torture.

You know, because we are supposed to ignore that he started it in the first place, hired people who's sole job was to find a way to justify it and that people from his administration continue to try and justify it to this day.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

He's trying to pretend that it was BUSH who stopped torture.

Well, he's not pretending if its an accurate statement.

You know, because we are supposed to ignore that he started it in the first place, hired people who's sole job was to find a way to justify it and that people from his administration continue to try and justify it to this day.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should ignore that. But if it is true that the Bush Administration stopped it long before Obama won election, then it wouldn't be accurate to credit Obama for stopping it.

[Tempra]

In any event, I think when implying that the two administrations are behaving exactly the same in this area, you're either being disingenuous, using hyperbole, or not considering all of the facts.

Did I make such a claim? I said that Obama has flip flopped his position from the time he was campaigning to now and I gave four examples to back that up.

I assume you're quibbling over my use of the phrase "virtually all respects." Granted, torture is a pretty big exception, but i don't think that makes Obama's War on Terror policies radically different. And it certainly doesn't mean that Obama hasn't changed his stance on many positions since he has become president.

[alguien]

Well, he's not pretending if its an accurate statement.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should ignore that. But if it is true that the Bush Administration stopped it long before Obama won election, then it wouldn't be accurate to credit Obama for stopping it.

Right, but they didn't stop it because they realized it was wrong (on both a moral and practical level), they stopped because it was creating extremely bad press and even after they stopped, they claimed it was both legal and right, meaning, they could have done so again if they so chose.

It would probably be more accurate to say that Obama put an end to the idea that such "enhanced techniques" were an acceptable practice in US Foreign policy.

[alguien]

Did I make such a claim? I said that Obama has flip flopped his position from the time he was campaigning to now and I gave four examples to back that up.

I assume you're quibbling over my use of the phrase "virtually all respects." Granted, torture is a pretty big exception, but i don't think that makes Obama's War on Terror policies radically different. And it certainly doesn't mean that Obama hasn't changed his stance on many positions since he has become president.

Tempra, when you use the term "flip-flop" it makes it hard for me to take your criticism seriously. Its probably this term, more than anything, that I object to. For one thing, it vastly simplifies a set of very complicated issues, for another, it isn't necessarily true. Resolving the problems between idealism and practicality does not make one a "flip-flopper."

Yes, my other "quibble" was with "virtually all respects". Torture is one of the largest exceptions there is.

Honest question: even though the President hasn't ceded rendition, wiretapping, etc., has his administration actually engaged in these since he came into office?

Finally, when it comes to holding the prisoners, I think we both know that if they were released prematurely, there would be many frantically screaming that Obama care more about coddling terrorists then keeping America safe.

[TrackerNeil]

TN

Well the reality is that all to often politicians feed them a line of crap about waste and abuse.

Although I think that is true, I also think it doesn't let us, the voters, off the hook. Americans love to talk about their rights, but not about their responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities of a citizen in a democratic society is to be reasonably well informed. Americans can program cell phones, memorize football stats going back 70 years, and follow ten trillion characters and plot lines on "Lost"; we can damn well browse the Web or open a magazine or newspaper to find out about politics.

You know, I actually have a good deal of sympathy for politicians. Every day they deal with voters who want more services but lower taxes. Less waste but no cuts to favored programs. Straight talk but nothing that makes them think too hard. Take health insurance reform. Americans want the system to remain private but to work for the public good, insurance companies that compete and make a profit but have to cover everyone regardless of preexisting condition, and limits on medical malpractice lawsuits but nothing that affects their own right to sue for damages. Oh, and the whole thing shouldn't make doctors less available or cost one dime. Is it any wonder why our elected officials stop trying to explain policy and simply take the easy way out?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

You know, I actually have a good deal of sympathy for politicians. Every day they deal with voters who want more services but lower taxes. Less waste but no cuts to favored programs. Straight talk but nothing that makes them think too hard. Take health insurance reform. Americans want the system to remain private but to work for the public good, insurance companies that compete and make a profit but have to cover everyone regardless of preexisting condition, and limits on medical malpractice lawsuits but nothing that affects their own right to sue for damages. Oh, and the whole thing shouldn't make doctors less available or cost one dime. Is it any wonder why our elected officials stop bother trying to explain policy and simply take the easy way out?

Very well said. There is a cost to every service. Unfortunately, people see certian serivces as entitlements and refuse to recognize the cost associated with that service. I believe Timmet has commented about how few services are offered to him in Wyoming and that he likes it that way. I wish more people would wake up and recognize that delayed pain is not a solution to most of the problems we face.

[Shryke]

I believe this can be summed up in the most facepalming chant ever that the Health Care Reform debate managed to create:

"Keep Government out of my Medicare!!!!"

[Tempra]

Tempra, when you use the term "flip-flop" it makes it hard for me to take your criticism seriously. Its probably this term, more than anything, that I object to. For one thing, it vastly simplifies a set of very complicated issues, for another, it isn't necessarily true. Resolving the problems between idealism and practicality does not make one a "flip-flopper."

Oh please, it was a joke hearkening back to the 2004 election where people literally took out flip-flops. Apparently it fell flat.

Yes, my other "quibble" was with "virtually all respects". Torture is one of the largest exceptions there is.

Sure, but as i've said, torture was only one part of GWB's war on terror policies.

Honest question: even though the President has ceded rendition, wiretapping, etc., has his administration actually engaged in these since he came into office?

Rendition: Yes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256499.html

Indefinite detention: Yes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Wiretapping: Yes. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

Finally, when it comes to holding the prisoners, I think we both know that if they were released prematurely, there would be many frantically screaming that Obama care more about coddling terrorists then keeping America safe.

No doubt, and Bush can already be blamed for this.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

I believe this can be summed up in the most facepalming chant ever that the Health Care Reform debate managed to create:

"Keep Government out of my Medicare!!!!"

Someone chanted that? Oh... my... God.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Although I think that is true, I also think it doesn't let us, the voters, off the hook. Americans love to talk about their rights, but not about their responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities of a citizen in a democratic society is to be reasonably well informed.... You know, I actually have a good deal of sympathy for politicians. Every day they deal with voters who want more services but lower taxes. Less waste but no cuts to favored programs. Straight talk but nothing that makes them think too hard. Take health insurance reform. Americans want the system to remain private but to work for the public good, insurance companies that compete and make a profit but have to cover everyone regardless of preexisting condition, and limits on medical malpractice lawsuits but nothing that affects their own right to sue for damages. Oh, and the whole thing shouldn't make doctors less available or cost one dime. Is it any wonder why our elected officials stop trying to explain policy and simply take the easy way out?

Damn. Wish I'd written that.

Tracker, I know you and I disagree on the health care stuff. My point here has been that I think the discussion largely has taken the easy way out, just as you describe above. I think reality requires that some hard choices be made, and we're not doing ourselves any favors if we try to claim that there is an easy solution with no costs to anyway. We may disagree on what should be done, but I do think we owe it to ourselves to recognize that there are pluses and minuses no matter which side of the debate we're on.

The thought of people not being able to get health care because of money bothers me on a personal level. Some people may not believe that, and that's fine. The problem for me is that I think, human nature being what it is, entitlements will lead to an even worse situation down the road for everyone.

Our current system clearly has flaws. However, I do think that one incredible virtue is that it encourages medical advances, and it is able to do that because of the enormous sums of money that pour into it. New drugs, new technology, new procedures, etc. And I think that looking into the future, those new things will benefit us all tremendously. Generic wonder drugs, etc. And I seriously worry that one effect of an entitlement program will be artificial cost controls that kill a lot of that innovation.

My dad is in the final stages of Alzheimer's, or a series of ministrokes that had the same effect. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see him now and know how he once was. And I know that there are a lot of other diseases out there that have horrible effects as well. I want a system that is going to encourage maximum innovation, so that maybe one day 50 years from now, we've beaten a lot of this shit.

[alguien]

Oh please, it was a joke hearkening back to the 2004 election where people literally took out flip-flops. Apparently it fell flat.

Yes, it fell very flat. That term just irritates the hell out of me.

Sure, but as i've said, torture was only one part of GWB's war on terror policies.

But its the one everyone has the most problems with! For others, Afghanistan is something he said he would do, Iraq is a quagmire he's working on withdrawing from, and they're also working on resolving the Guantanamo situation. The solutions will not be perfect nor will they likely be immediate, but I would say there's a world of difference between these and the previous administration.

Rendition: Yes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256499.html

Indefinite detention: Yes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Wiretapping: Yes. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

The rendition example was disappointing (and also a bit odd--the article states that they have adhered to their improved policy???). Indefinite detention I knew about, see my previous comment.

For wiretapping, the evidence put forth in this case seemed to have been 2006. It sounds like they're defending their right to use it, but are they still doing it?

If so, very disappointing.

[Swordfish]

I'm not sure. Could you elaborate on the point of this question?

I was responding to this:

Well, not torturing is a pretty key difference, in fact probably one of the most important, since its causing the mess you linked to. I'd be really shocked if water-boarding interrogation was still going on.

I thought that it had already been stopped, but i am uncertain about that, so i asked.

It would probably be more accurate to say that Obama put an end to the idea that such "enhanced techniques" were an acceptable practice in US Foreign policy.

Did he? Again, i honestly don't know what he has done, or not done, in this regard.

Honest question: even though the President hasn't ceded rendition, wiretapping, etc., has his administration actually engaged in these since he came into office?

The answer is yes.

But either way, how does that statement jive with this one:

Right, but they didn't stop it because they realized it was wrong (on both a moral and practical level), they stopped because it was creating extremely bad press and even after they stopped, they claimed it was both legal and right, meaning, they could have done so again if they so chose.

What is the standard? Stopping the action, or making it clear that the action is unacceptable?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But its the one everyone has the most problems with! For others, Afghanistan is something he said he would do, Iraq is a quagmire he's working on withdrawing from, and they're also working on resolving the Guantanamo situation. The solutions will not be perfect nor will they likely be immediate, but I would say there's a world of difference between these and the previous administration.

I'm honestly not sure that is the case with any of those three examples. Granted, Obama didn't start those things. But I'm not at all sure there is a difference in the way he is proceeding versus the plans of the previous Administration. The prior Administration said it wanted to close Gitmo, but said it was tough. And I think that's exaclty what this president has found. Although personally, I don't see why. The facility is now, apparently, state of the art, with better living conditions than comparable supermaxs here, regular Red Cross visits, etc.. It's isolated, no real risk of terrorist attacks, etc. It actually seems to be the perfect practical solution, but politics seems to be dictating otherwise.

For wiretapping, the evidence put forth in this case seemed to have been 2006. It sounds like they're defending their right to use it, but are they still doing it?

In terms of overseas calls, I've never quite understood the outcry. Why would anyone have a reasonable expectation of privacy when placing a call to a country that doesn't have its own prohibitions against wiretapping?

[alguien]

The answer is yes. But either way, how does that statement jive with this one:

What is the standard? Stopping the action, or making it clear that the action is unacceptable?

Please read what I wrote to FLoW upthread. There is a pretty clear and understandable difference between halting an action because you might get in trouble and subsequently claiming you were justified in doing so and would do it again

vs.

stopping an action and declaring it unacceptable and illegal.

ETA: Obama's administration I think has succeeded with this on torture, but failed the acid test for wiretapping and rendition, even if they haven't engaged in the former. And the latter, seems to have changed. Or at least improved.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Please read what I wrote to FLoW upthread. There is a pretty clear and understandable difference between halting an action because you might get in trouble and subsequently claiming you were justified in doing so and would do it again

vs.

stopping an action and declaring it unacceptable and illegal.

I'm not sure how clear the "Bush Administration" position on this really is. Cheney clearly is more hawkish on this than was President Bush, and Cheney's the one running around defending the practice. To my knowledge, Bush hasn't been defending it quite as ardently.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It would probably be more accurate to say that Obama put an end to the idea that such "enhanced techniques" were an acceptable practice in US Foreign policy.

So there have been prosecutions? Indictments? Carpet calls? No? Everyone got away with it scot free, and were paid for their services. How does this send the message that the actions are unacceptable?

[alguien]

I'm honestly not sure that is the case with any of those three examples. Granted, Obama didn't start those things. But I'm not at all sure there is a difference in the way he is proceeding versus the plans of the previous Administration.

I do think militarily, at least as presented to the public, there is more of a focus on strategy in Afghanistan than Iraq.

I also think how previous administration changed its policies about two-three years ago once they were proven to be a political liability and unpopular.

[alguien]

I'm not sure how clear the "Bush Administration" position on this really is. Cheney clearly is more hawkish on this than was President Bush, and Cheney's the one running around defending the practice. To my knowledge, Bush hasn't been defending it quite as ardently.

Yes, Bush has avoided the issue for the most part. I was definitely thinking of Cheney. To me he sort of represents the "voice" of Bush's administration.

[alguien]

So there have been prosecutions? Indictments? Carpet calls? No? Everyone got away with it scot free, and were paid for their services. How does this send the message that the actions are unacceptable?

You're right, it doesn't. I had read the Holder was considering charging some folks, but have yet to see that materialize.

All I can say is publicly condemning it and not engaging in it (torture) is a good first step. (at least)

As I understand it, it seems like it would be difficult for several reasons to pursue these people. I don't like that. But I think I understand why its the case.