The Answer- Two Days

Me, Friday:

And how long before Crowley is canned?

No one could have predicted:

P.J. Crowley, the state department spokesman, stepped down Sunday after saying publicly that treatment of Wikileaks suspect Pfc. Bradley Manning in military detention has been “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”

In a statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that she accepted his resignation with regret.

“P.J. has served our nation with distinction for more than three decades, in uniform and as a civilian. His service to country is motivated by a deep devotion to public policy and public diplomacy, and I wish him the very best,” Ms. Clinton wrote.

The remark by Mr. Crowley last week to a small audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, first reported by the blogger Philippa Thomas, was rejected by none other than President Obama at a press conference on Friday. Mr. Obama said that he had been assured the treatment of Private Manning was “appropriate and are meeting our basic standards.”

You don’t screw with the national security state. They do what they want, and if you speak up, you just gotta go. So much for that team of rivals shit.

And if you are wondering why we will stay in Afghanistan for as long as Obama is President, wonder no more. The mildest disagreement with the national security state and the war pig is cause for immediate dismissal.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

268 replies
  1. 1
    b-psycho says:

    Looks like someone has their priorities in a different order than his fans think.

  2. 2
    kerFuFFler says:

    Really upset by this!

  3. 3
    FlipYrWhig says:

    The Tapper write-up of the story, linked and excerpted on Daily Kos, attributes the decision to fire Crowley to Bill Daley. Reading between the lines, it sounded like Daley was het up that Crowley’s comments led to Obama being asked directly about Manning.

  4. 4
    hilts says:

    This is change I don’t believe in. Obama is doubling down on dumb and should be ashamed of himself.

    Cole,
    Something to bring a smile to your face. An interview with one of your favorite foreign policy and national security experts
    http://www.c-span.org/Events/W.....37420180-3

  5. 5
    Nick says:

    So much for that team of rivals shit.

    the “team of rivals” thing has to do with publicly criticizing your boss BEFORE you work with him, not WHILE.

  6. 6
    Guster says:

    This is Congress’s fall, you asshole Obama-haters. If only the Senate functioned, this wouldn’t have happened. Blah blah blah bully pulpit blah blah. Just show me how we have the votes to not push Crowley out. Show me the votes. I dare you.

  7. 7

    […] concerns about excessive squishiness, I formally extend a guest-blogging invitation to PJ Crowley, late of the US State Department. We can’t pay you what the Iron Triangle did, but we’re easy to work with because we […]

  8. 8
    hilts says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Fuck Bill Daley too.

  9. 9
    nitpicker says:

    Look, the guy’s a public affairs spokesman for the State Department. That means you don’t get to say whatever you want. He’s right, but it’s also appropriate to kick him to the curb if he can’t stay on point.

  10. 10
    J says:

    God forbid that a public figure in our government speak out for elementary decency. The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity. On the rare occasions when a decent human being in government displays some conviction, out he goes. I hope Mr. Crowley has no regrets and is proud of speaking out. He should be. The willingness of the people we voted into power to discard dedicated public servants like Mr. Crowley and Shirley Sherrod–people they should thank their lucky stars they have–speaks volumes.

  11. 11
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I forget. Is the current complaint that Manning is being treated in accordance with policy, but that’s unconscionable because the policy is abhorrent; or that Manning is not being treated in accordance with policy, because he’s being singled out for humiliation and retaliation?

  12. 12
    Malron says:

    I know we’re supposed to be up in arms about this and make Manning our newest progressive hero, but politicians always get canned for going off message like this – regardless the subject. You can’t openly criticize your bosses in the media and expect to have a job in Washington – or anywhere else, to be honest. But I’m sure hundreds of fake progressives will flood this thread gleefully saying “I trolled you so, John!”

  13. 13
    Guster says:

    @nitpicker: That’s right, goddamit. Being right has no place in politics. We pay that guy to lie to us. He didn’t do his job. So he’s outta there. Hopefully the next guy we pay to take that position doesn’t make the same mistake.

  14. 14
    EGrise says:

    Also, too: Crowley’s dad was a POW in WWII. So the subject might have been a bit sensitive to him.

  15. 15
    nitpicker says:

    @Guster: Not saying he should lie and I’m not even saying he shouldn’t have said what he said, but, as a government public affairs guy myself, it is unreasonable to expect to keep your job as a spokesman if you use that position to espouse your personal opinions.

  16. 16
    lacp says:

    Cole, time to ‘fess up – you’ve been getting jiggy with Jane Hamsher, haven’t you? ‘Cause this is DEFINITELY (if I can borrow ABL’s caps-lock for a second) a full-bore Firebagger assault on the President. How dare you?

  17. 17
    Nick says:

    @Guster:

    Being right has no place in politics. We pay that guy to lie to us. He didn’t do his job. So he’s outta there.

    you don’t work in PR, do you?

  18. 18
    Chuchundra says:

    It’s interesting that bloggers who are concerned about the overreach of executive power in the US government are also angry that the President won’t personally step in and override the decisions of the CO of the Quantico brig.

  19. 19
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Malron: I actually think John has the right idea here — although I don’t see as much nefarious intent as he does. It sounds to me like Crowley said it was terrible, the DoD said it was all according to SOP, and Daley concluded that Crowley was embarrassing the DoD by publicly contradicting that assessment. So it’s more like, “We can’t have someone out there undermining our standard detainee policy,” as opposed to “Someone’s telling the truth about Manning, we’d better act fast.”

    I’m not sure State Department officials really _do_ get to “disagree with the national security state” in public. Wasn’t there an ambassador (to Greece, maybe?) who resigned in a blaze of glory from his post under Bush when he decided he could no longer defend American foreign policy?

  20. 20
    Guster says:

    @nitpicker: Sure, I’m not disagreeing. His job _is_ to lie to us. He failed to do that effectively. So of course they’re gonna shitcan him. (Though I wish he’d made them fire him. Reminds me of the NPR people.)

  21. 21
    Guster says:

    @Nick: I’m a novelist. I lie for a living, but my lies are labeled ‘fiction’ instead of ‘news.’

  22. 22
    Wapiti says:

    @EGrise: Yes, it was like General Taguba (whose father survived the Bataan Death March) investigating Abu Ghraib.

    Some people have the concept of moral and right behavior up close and personal in their minds; others, not so much. It’s obviously not just the experience, first-hand or second-hand. Senator McCain, former POW and torture victim, doesn’t seem to care if it’s happening to someone besides himself.

  23. 23
    Yutsano says:

    @FlipYrWhig: It’s funny because I once considered the diplomatic corps as a career. It says right there on the first page of the job description that you will be expected to carry out the official opinion of the United States government at all times especially in any public forum. Crowley got canned for telling things outside the official line. Unfortunately that’s a terminating offense in State.

  24. 24
    Whick says:

    “The State Department spokesman” and “our military’s actions are ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid” just don’t go together. You can’t have that job and make a statement like that. I say, thanks to Crowley for saying it, and I hope it make a difference in how Manning is treated, but I doubt it will, and his keeping his job wouldn’t be such a hot idea in any case.

  25. 25
    Guster says:

    @Chuchundra: That’s as interesting as the fact that Al Gore uses air travel.

  26. 26
    John Cole says:

    @Nick: The appeal of the concept of a team of rivals is that the leader is strong enough to handle dissenting viewpoints. It isn’t that you take all your rivals and co-opt into your cabinet so that they can’t publicly disagree. That’s not a team of rivals, that’s LBJ’s “I’d rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”

  27. 27
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Yutsano: I think the fact that the WH Chief of Staff got involved shows that there’s more to it than simple State Dept. policy. But it does to me ring of internecine turf wars.

  28. 28
    Stillwater says:

    @FlipYrWhig: CLose. You thought those were exhaustive, didn’t you? It’s that policy is so loose that being treated ‘in accordance to policy’ permits a detainee to be ‘singled out for humiliation and retaliation’.

  29. 29
    MikeJ says:

    If Crowley had problems he should have told the president, and if he still had a problem after that should have resigned.

    It’s supposed to be a *team* of rivals. You can criticize the team among yourselves, but not in public. Shoot your mouth off to the press and you have to go. It’s a pity it took them so long to shitcan him.

  30. 30
    blogbytom says:

    @Chuchundra: Umm. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. Kinda outranks a CO at Quantico. It’s not really overreach if it’s within his Constitutional authority.

  31. 31
    hilts says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    It sounded like Daley was fed up that Crowley’s comments led to Obama being asked directly about Manning.

    Crowley would have been pushed out if Rahm Emmanuel were still Chief of Staff. Unlike Daly, Emmanuel would have added his personal touch by calling Crowley on the phone and telling him that was a scumbag motherfucker.

  32. 32
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @John Cole: Even then, though, I’m not sure everyone is supposed to _air publicly_ his or her dissenting viewpoint. For all we know everyone in the firmament at State feels just as Crowley does, from Clinton on down, and has said so repeatedly. But is that supposed to get out?

  33. 33
    Nick says:

    @John Cole:

    The appeal of the concept of a team of rivals is that the leader is strong enough to handle dissenting viewpoints.

    In a meeting, to your boss’ face, not to the press.

    It isn’t that you take all your rivals and co-opt into your cabinet so that they can’t publicly disagree.

    um, that’s the way any team works. Like MikeJ said, he didn’t get canned for going to the President and saying “you shouldn’t be doing this, this is wrong.” He got canned

    If he had a problem, he should’ve went to Clinton, Gates or the President. If they ignored him and then he spoke out, that’s one thing, but when your boss is blind slided by a comment you made without him knowing, that’s not being a “team of rivals,” that’s just being rivals.

    If any other employee ever did that, they’d be fired too.

  34. 34
    xian says:

    I think Crowley did the honorable thing, but I also think that what made it honorable includes the fact that he was willing to suffer the consequences of challenging his hierarchy.

    I wish more public servants under Bush had been willing to make criticisms and lose their jobs/careers rather than waiting till it was safe to do so.

  35. 35
    Yutsano says:

    @blogbytom: No, but it CAN be called out for direct interference in his trial,which is probably why Obama has and is trying not to comment publicly on this. Personally I’d rather heads roll at Quantico or that Manning get moved to another facility, but I don’t see any way of that happening.

  36. 36
    JWL says:

    My guess is Crowley’s own self-respect finally got the upper hand. A person with his years of experience wouldn’t casually toss off a remark like that without being fully prepared for the consequences. He’s probably set up with a decent pension, and a man of his accomplishments shouldn’t have too tough a time finding work. He’s better off for it.

    I’d be willing to bet the Justice Department is chock full of like minded people, too. As well as any number of other government agencies. But it’s a bad time for anyone to turn their back on a guaranteed paycheck.

    Obama has bought into the sinister apparatus created by the Cheney administration hook, line, and sinker. It’s as shameful as it is inexplicable, if for no other reason than, unlike Cheney, he surely knows better. Then again, maybe not.

  37. 37
    WaterGirl says:

    This is not the first time that P.J. Crowley has spoken out publicly in a way that undermined the government he serves. The first time I noticed it was during the coup in Honduras, when P.J. Crowley made statements that contradicted and/or undermined the president’s and the state department’s position. I really wanted them to fire him then. i wonder if our new chief of staff las less tolerance for this kind of behavior than the old one did.

  38. 38
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Stillwater: Well, it seems to me that the complaint that Manning is being individually harassed is hard to square with the complaint that detainees generally, or people accused of espionage in particular (that’s the underlying offense, right?), shouldn’t be treated like this. The case that Manning is being humiliated for being Manning seems like it should involve documenting how his treatment goes _beyond_ what has been done with people in similar cases. But the criticisms slip back and forth.

    Your explanation (that even according to policy he’s still being singled out, which is a problem for him in particular _and_ for the policy) makes sense but I’m not sure how widely it’s held.

  39. 39
    Andrew says:

    Right as others are saying, airing a public disagreement is absolutely grounds for dismissal. Crowley was right to do so anyway, even with the expected consequences.

  40. 40
    WaterGirl says:

    @JWL: I posted my comment (directly below) before I saw your comment. I think P.J. Crowley has a history of tossing out remarks that don’t fit with the program, but he has never had consequences that I could see, until now.

    Edit: I should probably say that I don’t disagree with what P.J. Crowley said about Manning; I just think you shouldn’t be able to speak out publicly against the state department’s position and still keep your job.

  41. 41
  42. 42
    Yutsano says:

    @WaterGirl: On the substance of his remarks, Crowley is correct: Manning is not being treated well and no rational explanation has been given for why he is being treated as such. But saying that in a public forum and having a history of going off the ranch like that will eventually have consequences, and I think Crowley knew that.

  43. 43
    jazzgurl says:

    You lot are always looking for something to fight and be upset about! What the hell! It’s not what you say,but how you say it. Don’t stand there and flicking badmouth me,I am your damn boss. He needed to resign. Go Obama!

  44. 44
    MikeJ says:

    @Andrew: No, he wasn’t right to do it. He should have resigned and made his statement if he felt he had to. Blindsiding your boss is just chickenshit.

  45. 45
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @JWL: “Sinister apparatus”? It seems to me rational and defensible to conclude that Manning is being treated in accordance with longstanding policy, accept DoD’s assurances of that, and not be too troubled by muckraking reports about particular episodes. You don’t have to _agree_ with that, but it’s not hard IMHO to imagine.

  46. 46
    Stillwater says:

    @FlipYrWhig: The case that Manning is being humiliated for being Manning seems like it should involve documenting how his treatment goes beyond what has been done with people in similar cases.

    Manning’s lawyer has tried to establish this very thing. It’s a tricky business, this appealing to the guardians of the guards and all.

  47. 47
    Guster says:

    @Andrew: And in fact, nobody is saying it’s _not_ grounds for dismissal. (Though he wasn’t dismissed, apparently, but pushed to resign.)

  48. 48
    homerhk says:

    As an Obot it pains me to say this. Probably he deserved to be fired given publicly undermining his boss; but what he said gave the President an opportunity to address and get involved with this situation; by firing him and doubling down on defending the Pentagon, he owns the treatment of Manning in a way that he didn’t necessarily do so before. And, yes, despite the awesome incredible things the man has done as President, this is shameful.

  49. 49
    Nick says:

    @Guster: Did Amos make his opposition known to the President first? I’m 99 percent sure he did.

  50. 50
    MikeJ says:

    @Guster: Cole seems to be saying that in the OP.

  51. 51
    WaterGirl says:

    @Yutsano: I don’t like the way Manning is being treated and regardless of how people are usually treated, this makes no sense. If you weren’t thinking of suicide before the public humiliation of standing naked in front of everyone, going through that might just send you in that direction.

    If they are singling him out because of WikiLeaks, then that’s wrong.
    If they treat military prisoners that way as a general rule, then that’s wrong.

    But I am SO not cut out for the military or law enforcement that I imagine I would think a lot of what happens with the treatment of civilian and military prisoners is wrong.

    I just think P.J. Crowley spoke up one too many times in a way that undermined the president and/or the state department, so he had to go.

  52. 52
    Mr Furious says:

    Even if emotion had gotten the better of Crowley for a moment and he slipped, he was asked directly by the reporter if the comment was on the record.

    After a moment’s pause (during which Crowley surely realized the impact of his comment, and thought, “how badly do I want my job?”) he answered, “Sure.”

    I commend him for having the opinion, and the balls to stand by it, but he certainly knew it would be his ass.

    Also, too: I read Clinton’s comments as, as close as she can get to “Goddam. Straight, PJ!” as she could get.

  53. 53
    myiq2xu says:

    The real question is whether Crowley was speaking for himself or for the Secretary of State when he spoke out.

    Either way, he was a dead man walking as soon as he opened his mouth.

  54. 54
    Punchy says:

    do the Pens plan 2 score even 1 goal the entire weekend?

  55. 55
    Egypt Steve says:

    @Chuchundra: President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States. That ought to count for something.

  56. 56
    WaterGirl says:

    @homerhk: As an Obot, it pains me to agree with you. But I do.

  57. 57
    NR says:

    @John Cole: Also, what does it say that one of Obama’s “rivals” in this case was someone who stood up for the rule of law?

  58. 58
    Guster says:

    @MikeJ: I don’t think Cole’s saying there are no grounds for shitcanning him. I think he’s saying that just because there are grounds doesn’t mean you’ve gotta do it. (At least that’s what _I’m_ saying. Maybe Cole’s just saying: Yeah, this is how it works.) The alternative wasn’t Crowley grabbing an AK and busting Manning free. The alternative was letting the story die a quiet death.

    @Nick: Yeah, I think you’re right. So that’s the difference: if you first tell the President that you disagree, then you can go public?

    Amos was saying that Obama’s policy was gonna kill Marines. Crowley just said it’s stupid and counterproductive. I think the difference is Cole’s ‘national security state.’

  59. 59
    SteveinSC says:

    Oh, I see the “Team of Apologists” is out in full force today. Ooh, ooh, crowley should be a team player, ooh, don’t talk where bloggers can hear. What else could our put-upon, bipartisan president with the sore ass do?

    Is there anything that the worthless empty suit in the WH could do that would cause them to pull their heads out Obama’s ass? Face it dicks, he’s a fraud. He’s so fucking centrist he doesn’t have a left hand. Bush-lite and the torture state lives on.

  60. 60
    Guster says:

    @SteveinSC: To be fair, we all hated when Bush did things, so it’s kinda hypocritical to get all pissy now when Obama doesn’t do things.

  61. 61
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @Whick:
    .
    .

    You can’t have that job and make a statement like that.

    That is because the U.S. as a whole is not just depraved – it is balloonbagger-depraved.
    .
    .

  62. 62
    Nick says:

    @Guster:

    So that’s the difference: if you first tell the President that you disagree, then you can go public?

    um, yes. It’s a big difference when the boss knows its coming.

  63. 63
    WaterGirl says:

    I think the guy who posted in #59 used to troll the Obama blog before the election, too, barely changing his screen name and not changing the content much. I guess after you’ve been trolling for 2 or 3 years, it gets to be second nature.

  64. 64
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @SteveinSC:
    .
    .
    Anyone who invites questioning of President Obama’s policies must be eliminated.
    .
    .

  65. 65
    MattR says:

    @Nick: You mean after your boss has told you that the decision has been made? You want to claim that it is better that the boss knows it is coming, but it is just as easy to argue that it is worse because the boss has already made it clear that your input has been taken into account and yet you are still pushing the issue (especially when the dissent is coming from someone in a military chain of command who has been trained for years to accept and carry out the orders he is given).

  66. 66
    blogbytom says:

    @Yutsano:

    No, but it CAN be called out for direct interference in his trial, which is probably why Obama has and is trying not to comment publicly on this.

    Leaving aside the fact that this is the most generous possible interpretation of the White House’s relative silence on the conditions of Manning’s detention, and that we agree that heads should roll at Quantico and Manning should be moved to another facility where he’s treated more humanely, I guess I just don’t buy your argument on the merits. It’s not as though every comment can be cited as interference in the (eventual?) trial — if it were, Obama would be guilty of interference just by responding to Tapper’s presser question. Granted, IANAL, but saying something along the lines of, “We’re looking into the conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention and hope to make his life more comfortable as he awaits his day in court” does not a mistrial make.

    I just think your reply is a bit of a dodge. Granted, I wouldn’t expect Obama to say, “Oh, hell yeah, Crowley was on the money and we’re moving Manning to a suite at the Ritz at this very moment because we’re torturing the guy” — hell, Crowley’s resignation was pretty much a given as soon as the story broke given the prerogatives of executive power. Again, I simply think the President has the ability to find some middle ground, and I think he missed that chance this time. In a pretty shameful way.

  67. 67
    henqiguai says:

    @nitpicker (#9):

    Look, the guy’s a public affairs spokesman for the State Department. That means you don’t get to say whatever you want. He’s right, but it’s also appropriate to kick him to the curb if he can’t stay on point.

    Absolutely. And when you’re publicly speaking in an official capacity, you most definitely don’t go wandering off the reservation.

    And I keep seeing definitive comments that Obama forced this dude out (which, by the way, is not only the President’s right, but in such contentious times, probably a necessity). Anybody got any links to credible statements to that effect, or are we just spewing ?

    And (#2) the scorn about Obama’s statement that he asked the DoD about Manning’s status; pick – either the CiC’s query has weight and he was officially assured that Manning’s treatment was within bounds, or the DoD is going rogue and is lying to their CiC.

    And (#3) on the inhumane treatment of Manning sparking the outrage. Really ? As someone has mentioned in a previous thread, his treatment, while perhaps distasteful, is well within the bounds of what is routinely visited upon too many people in custody. Widen you outrage, unless it’s reserved for chubby cheeked ‘celebrity’ prisoners.

  68. 68
    homerhk says:

    Watergirl,

    thanks. I live in hope that this was some sort of double bluff. When I heard Crowley had said what he said, I thought hopefully that is the pressure of Obama behind the scenes trying to get something done about the treatment that he couldn’t necessarily do directly lest he be charged with being overly political with military issues. the fact that crowley resigned is obviously in direct contradiction with that scenario unless the resignation was intended to bring more publicity to this to put even more pressure. That is too much wishful thinking even for me, however.

    I still think Obama is a wonderful President and has done some incredible things – hopefully he’ll continue to do incredible things til 2016 and maybe beyond. But on this, he’s wrong.

  69. 69
    Reader of the Most Depressing Blog Evah, Formerly known as Chad N Freude says:

    Crowley was right, but how does a display of dissension within the Administration help foreign relations? It makes US diplomacy look vulnerable to manipulation by states with interests inimical to ours and unreliable to allies. If Crowley wanted to express himself on the record, he should have resigned first.

  70. 70
    SteveinSC says:

    @Guster:

    hypocritical to get all pissy now when Obama doesn’t do things

    I beg your pardon? Obama is not allowing Manning to be abused. Jesus Fucking Christ. What rock have you been hiding under?

  71. 71
    Nick says:

    @MattR:

    You mean after your boss has told you that the decision has been made? You want to claim that it is better that the boss knows it is coming, but it is just as easy to argue that it is worse because the boss has already made it clear that your input has been taken into account and yet you are still pushing the issue (especially when the dissent is coming from someone in a military chain of command who has been trained for years to accept and carry out the orders he is given).

    that’s stretching it. Bosses like to know its coming so they can prepare for it and they can say, as Obama did with Amos, “We discussed it, his opinions were taken into account and we disagreed.” That’s a team of rivals. This is a low-level staff member randomly speaking on an issue that the President, quite honestly, probably knew very little about, not a Commander commenting on a signature piece of legislation he had already discussed with him. It’s two completely different situations.

  72. 72
    Egypt Steve says:

    A lot of the comments in this thread seem to take it for granted that the idea to mess with Manning comes from the military. Is that plausible at all? What does the CO of the Quantico brig care about this — are he and his guards just a bunch of closet-gay S&M sociopaths who get their rocks off watching Manley stand there naked? Or is this a policy decision? I tend to think the source of all of this is a hell of a lot closer to the White House than it is to Quantico.

  73. 73
    WaterGirl says:

    @homerhk: Agree on all points. Again.

  74. 74
    SteveinSC says:

    @Egypt Steve:

    hell of a lot closer to the White House than it is to Quantico

    These must be the same exquisite prigs who felt the same during Bush’s Torture Regime. Jesus, its beginning to sound like 2004 again, just a different cast of major players.

  75. 75
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @henqiguai: The Tapper story that was linked on a DailyKos recommended diary lays the firing at the feet of William Daley.

    To be fair, there are people who object to Manning’s treatment _because_ it’s both inhumane and routine. I personally find that that undermines the much more volatile claim that Manning is being singled out, and the even more incendiary claim that his treatment is torture.

    I have a hard time believing that every indignity suffered by an incarcerated person is on a continuum with torture. That’s why I’m personally very reluctant to join the crusade.

  76. 76
    Nick says:

    @Egypt Steve:

    Is that plausible at all?

    How is it NOT plausible.

    What does the CO of the Quantico brig care about this—are he and his guards just a bunch of closet-gay S&M sociopaths who get their rocks off watching Manley stand there naked?

    Or testosterone-pumped uber “patriots” who gets their jollies off using standard protocol to embarrass someone whom they think is a traitor because AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

  77. 77
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Egypt Steve: Isn’t the “naked” story somewhat contested? I thought I had read that Manning said if he really wanted to kill himself he could do it with his flip-flops or his underpants, so then the guards took his clothes away, so then _Manning_ decided to show he was unruffled by standing at attention naked.

  78. 78
    alwhite says:

    YOU FILTHY FIREBAGGER! HOW *DARE* YOU QUESTION THIS PRESIDENT!

    Sadly, get used to this sort of shit (assuming you are not already expecting it). As long as the Republican Party is owned by the masters of the universe and powered by the batshit insane you have no choice. Take what ever load of shit these assholes give us or get it worse from the Republicans.

  79. 79
    JPL says:

    I’m shocked that the departments of state and defense have a disagreement. Never in the time of the history of our great nation have they disagreed.

  80. 80
    Donut says:

    I am amazed at how far some of y’all will go to defend Obama on this. Sure, Crowley should have expected to be under the gun for this, absolutely, but, news flash, you assholes, Crowley was spot-on. What the DOD is doing to Manning is torture, and the President who ran on a promise to close Gitmo is responsible for it. He’s the god-damned Commander in Chief of the armed forces. “The buck stops here,” and what-not.

    Also, let’s dispense with this idea that Crowley ran around shooting his mouth off. He made the initial remark in public, yes, and in front of a BBC reporter, true, but he didn’t grant an exclusive interview to “Good Morning, America” or some shit like that. He overstepped his authority in offering his opinion in public? Okay, fine, I’ll go along with that, and I don’t even care that he lost his job. Fine with that too.

    It’s the fact that people are willing to accept that what’s happening to Manning is hunky dory, that it’s good policy, and Crowley was somehow a bad actor for drawing attention to it – please explain to me what the hell difference it makes if he resigned first or still had his State position?

    Seriously, WTF difference does that make? The policy he criticized is a very very bad one. If you wanna try to defend the policy, please do, but let’s not get hung up on the mechanics of when Crowley said what and where exactly he was employed when he said it. That’s a fucking bullshit cop-out.

    Fer god’s sake.

  81. 81
    SteveinSC says:

    Cole, where the fuck are you? Get in here and explain your “Come To Jesus” conversion back in 2005 and why. There are some self-delusional tyros or trolls wrecking the place.

  82. 82
    cat48 says:

    It looks like Daley surprised at the Friday, Press Conf. & didn’t like it! per Tapper:

    While some White House officials knew of Crowley’s comments, White House chief of staff Bill Daley learned of them when ABC News asked that question of the president. Daley told White House officials of Crowley, “he’s done.”

  83. 83
    gene108 says:

    I just look at the security state as the new normal.

    I remember all the right-wingers saying after the USA PATRIOT Act (greatest acronym, ever!) saying, if you aren’t a terrorist you don’t have to worry about it. I realized they might not feel the same way if a Democrat was in the White House. I also realized there’s no way in hell a Democratic President would ever relinquish those police powers.

    If he / she did relinquish those police powers and another terrorist attack happened on U.S. soil, his/her political career and the careers of anyone remotely close to him/her would be over, i.e. all Democrats would be dubbed as being the softest babies evah on the never ending War on Islam Terror.

    I wish we could go back to following the rule of law, but I don’t see any President being secure enough to allow that to happen.

    And if you are wondering why we will stay in Afghanistan for as long as Obama is President, wonder no more. The mildest disagreement with the national security state and the war pig is cause for immediate dismissal.

    The military needs wars to justify itself and prove itself. People in the military get promotions because of performance in wars. People in the military are above human foibles, especially the generals, who we must revere. Therefore we must defer to their judgment on wars, knowing full well what their judgment will be – to keep going to war.

    I’m just keeping my fingers crossed and what little faith I have in these matters, that we’ll start drawing down troops this summer.

  84. 84
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Nick: I lose track, but isn’t Manning linked in some way to the “Collateral Murder” video? If so, it wouldn’t be terrible surprising for other soldiers to have a vendetta against the guy.

  85. 85
    SteveinSC says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    That’s why I’m personally very reluctant to join the crusade.

    prig

    Isn’t the “naked” story somewhat contested?

    Fucking PRIG.

  86. 86
    Tim says:

    This post gives me a proud and vibrant Firebagger erection.

    Now Hillary joins Obama in spinelessly and publicly genuflecting before the altar of the fascist security state. Well, I guess they ARE the fascist security state after all.

    Apparently, they are both smart as whips and just as evil.

    I actually thought maybe Crowley would survive, just because to NOT keep him is so flagrantly vicious. oops!

  87. 87
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Donut: This is opening a whole can of very old worms, I realize, but why is what is happening to Manning “torture”? I feel like I missed something important when this was being decided. And I mean that without snark. I don’t get it. I don’t get why so many people believe that, and I really do wonder if I’ve missed an important exposé.

  88. 88
    geg6 says:

    @John Cole:

    Well, John, Nick is often confused about the most elementary concepts, I have found. Kinda like his idea that it happens all the time that Americans in military corrections are routinely held in forced naked positions for even such small infractions as adultery/divorce. Funny that. My brother went AWOL from the Navy and was in the midst of mania from his bipolar disorder and was actually really, truly a suicide risk and that never once happened to him. But Nick, font of military knowledge knows more about this than my brother simply because he has military in his family. Don’t think he actually served like my brother, but his family made him an expert on military corrections by…osmosis, I guess.

  89. 89
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @SteveinSC: If it’s true that Manning decided to stand at attention naked himself, that’s kind of different than being forced to stand at attention naked, no?

  90. 90
    Nick says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    If so, it wouldn’t be terrible surprising for other soldiers to have a vendetta against the guy.

    There are no bigger animals in this country than military prison guards. That’s where the put the worst of them. The job of a military prison guard/warden/even prosecutor is to intimidate a prisoner a thousand times more than civilians one do.

    And while I don’t want to speculate (that’s what firebaggers are for), it’s entirely possible that Manning himself is pushing their buttons, leading to an even worse reaction.

    The fact that he’s not being beaten daily is a really positive development IMO.

  91. 91
    Nick says:

    @geg6:

    My brother went AWOL from the Navy and was in the midst of mania from his bipolar disorder and was actually really, truly a suicide risk and that never once happened to him.

    your brother is lucky. Also, having been truly mentally ill, they might have actually took pity on him. He wasn’t accused of something treasonous.

  92. 92
    SteveinSC says:

    @FlipYrWhig: You’ll get some slack from me if you can find evidence that HE asked to take his own clothes off. Jesus, by that logic if he gets to brush his teeth once a day, does that mean he’s not being abused?

  93. 93
    Donut says:

    Oh, and let’s move this discussion to Obama’s response.

    Tapper asked:

    PJ Crowley, said the treatment of Bradley Manning by the Pentagon is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid. And I’m wondering if you agree with that. Thank you, sir.”

    Obama replied:

    With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are. I can’t go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well.

    You guys wanna try to defend this? Please do. Please point out to me how this answered Tapper’s question in a substantive fashion.

    I don’t wanna put words in the guy’s mouth, but it seems to me Cole’s point in posting about this initially and again today is that the guy (Obama) who said he’d work to change the system from within is failing to do so, and badly, when it comes to taking on the national security state. At some point, some president is going to have to do it, not just give it lip service – or we end up being just another run of the mill fascist state. We’re already well on our way there, IMHO.

  94. 94
    Nick says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    why is what is happening to Manning “torture”?

    because St. Glenn of Brazil said it was and he’s principled and so awesome and stuff.

  95. 95
    geg6 says:

    @Nick:

    Oh really? Have you actually read the book or spent one second on any sort of research on the Lincoln cabinet? If you had, you would state such specious arguments with such certainty.

  96. 96
    gene108 says:

    @alwhite:

    What you need to do is figure out how to convince all the “Bubbas” out there that this is a bad policy. A hell of a lot of the “Bubbas” got sick of the Iraq war, by 2006. Opinions can be changed.

    I don’t think criticizing the President and Democrats, from the Left, without offering any praise is an effective way to move opinion to your side.

    Who looks like they know what they’re doing? A group of folks, who get very little criticism, especially from their own group, i.e. Republicans or a bunch of folks, whose supporters seem to hate them as much as their opponents, i.e. Democrats?

    If a Democrat can run as Liberal anywhere in America and get elected, you’ll see things shift hard left.

    If you run openly as a liberal in Nebraska, North Carolina (most parts), Virginia (most parts), Ohio (some parts), Nevada, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia (most parts), Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alaska, North and South Dakota, and Iowa, what are your chances of getting elected?

    Right now, I’d say slim to none.

    What the Right’s done is wage a decades long PR campaign to keep pushing their agenda and to keep backing Republicans. Privatizing Social Security was a policy disaster in 2005. Did Right-wingers quit? Nope, they’re still pushing for entitlement reform. They’re still bombarding people with misinformation.

    Yet, when the Left meets similar setbacks, they don’t take it coolly. They seem to want to punch Democrats in the face, for not pushing their agenda hard enough, rather than trying to influence the public, so Democrats and Republicans risk electoral defeat by going against the Liberal Agenda.

  97. 97
    Nick says:

    @Donut:

    we end up being just another run of the mill fascist state. We’re already well on our way there, IMHO.

    Oh please, when weren’t we just another run of the mill fascist state?

    I’m confused now, you’re upset Obama isn’t keeping us from becoming what we’ve always been or are you upset he’s not taking us away from what we’ve always been?

  98. 98
    Nick says:

    @gene108:

    If you run openly as a liberal in Nebraska, North Carolina (most parts), Virginia (most parts), Ohio (some parts), Nevada, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia (most parts), Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alaska, North and South Dakota, and Iowa, what are your chances of getting elected?

    problem is a lot of liberals think “almost certain because we haven’t tried” (we have, but when you tell them that, they must hear Swahili)

  99. 99
    SteveinSC says:

    @Nick:

    I’m confused now,

    Troll.

  100. 100
    henqiguai says:

    @FlipYrWhig (#89):

    If it’s true that Manning decided to stand at attention naked himself, that’s kind of different than being forced to stand at attention naked, no?

    Yep, I read a couple of articles describing exactly that. He, Manning, had all but his shorts removed; when there was an inspection or pass-thru, he, of his own volition, chose to stand at attention while the guards looked in. And further in clarification, the article pointed out (for the prudes) that there were no female troopers/guards present for the incident.

  101. 101
    Mark S. says:

    @Nick:

    There are no bigger animals in this country than military prison guards. That’s where the put the worst of them. The job of a military prison guard/warden/even prosecutor is to intimidate a prisoner a thousand times more than civilians one do.

    And how do you know that, Nick? Do you also cover the Pentagon at your community newspaper?

  102. 102
    MattR says:

    @Nick:

    Also, having been truly mentally ill, they might have actually took pity on him. He wasn’t accused of something treasonous.

    So her brother was a suicide risk and you believe that they took pity on him by not subjecting him to the measures designed to prevent suicides? It seems like you are implying that those measures are not really designed to prevent suicide but instead are designed to inflict additional punishment based on the crimes the prisoner is accused of.

  103. 103
    gene108 says:

    @Donut:

    You guys wanna try to defend this? Please do.

    Obama’s failed to tackle the national security state. He wanted to close GITMO, but Congress didn’t back him at all. I’m not sure what a President can do, when the Senate votes almost unanimously to keep GITMO open and not relocate people here.

    The problem is bigger than President Obama. It’s about a terrified public – the people in rural places that are the last place in this country a terrorist would hit – that are kept in a state of panic, by Fox News, Republicans, etc. and vote according to that fear. They seem to have a lot of pull, when it comes to punishing elected officials for not sharing their fear. Calm those folks down and maybe, just maybe, you can see politicians tackle the police state.

    Anyway, I’m curios about something.

    Is there anything, which you feel President Obama be praised for, since he has been in office? Basically, do you think he’s done anything positive for the country?

  104. 104
    Kathy in St. Louis says:

    The story caught my eye because I was hoping that Monica Crowley had been caught doing something that would get her dismissed from any and all cable news programs from now until the end of time. Wrong Crowley, though. Too bad.

  105. 105
    MattR says:

    @Donut: Would you have been shocked to hear this come from Bush’s mouth?

    With respect to Guantanamo Bay, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of the prisoners’ confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.

    @Kathy in St. Louis:

    Wrong Crowley, though. Too bad.

    This time. Keep dreaming though :)

  106. 106
    Mouse Tolliver says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    The Tapper write-up of the story, linked and excerpted on Daily Kos, attributes the decision to fire Crowley to Bill Daley.

    This is the same Bill Daley who defended John Boehner on Press the Meet last week on one of those rare occasions when David Gregory framed a question in such a way that it painted the Cryin’ John in a negative light. With Democrats like Daley, who needs Republicans?

  107. 107
    gene108 says:

    @Nick: Maybe some people think Alan Grayson got re-elected, instead of getting his ass handed to him in 2010.

    Anyway, all of this really is about changing the mindset of people in the middle, so they’ll demand change from elected officials. The Right-wingers are very focused on pushing their agenda.*

    The Left is focused also, too but…oh look…over there…SQUIRREL!!!!!

    *I’m surprised at how far they are trying to push things to the right. I’d thought, in the 1990’s and the earlier part of this decade, some things were just established standards, which all sides had agreed on, like collective bargaining and child labor. The new crop of Republicans, have shown me the error of my ways.

  108. 108
    Donut says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Manning has been held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, for nearly a year. No trial. No history of violent behavior. No actual threat to himself. He’s not allowed to move (exercise) in his cell. Every five minutes a guard asks him to respond that he is “okay”. This prevents Manning from sleeping during the day. They took away his fucking underpants when he joked that he was hardly a threat to himself. You think this does not constitute the basis of torture? Really? You think if you go into that scenario, assuming you have a normal psychological profile right now, that YOU would come out of that okay, after a year?

    You have to be shittin’ me. Many studies have been done on this very issue of solitary confinement, and wonder of wonders, such studies conclude that this type of treatment is torture.

    You have the whole internets at your disposal. Try a search engine.

  109. 109
    Stillwater says:

    @henqiguai: And further in clarification, the article pointed out (for the prudes) that there were no female troopers/guards present for the incident.

    They’re just keeping us clear on the outer limits of acceptable military behavior, the boundaries we cross only at the price of our humanity. I mean, imagine how uncomfortable everyone would have been if a female soldier saw him naked? Can you even imagine something like that?

  110. 110
    Mike M says:

    The job of a spokesperson is to communicate the department’s policies and public positions to the press. If you want to express your personal opinion, you resign and take the opportunity to explain your principled reasons for resigning. You don’t publicly heap scorn on your employer and expect to keep your job.

  111. 111
    Mike G says:

    But Obama asked politely, and the torturers assured him that they weren’t doing anything wrong. And who could be more objective than the people doing the torturing.

    What a gutless moral coward.

  112. 112
    Yutsano says:

    @Kathy in St. Louis: We should be so lucky.

    @blogbytom:

    Again, I simply think the President has the ability to find some middle ground, and I think he missed that chance this time.

    I want him to find that middle ground. I’m just not certain where that middle ground exists that can’t be regarded as interference. Soonergrunt explained this much better than I am.

  113. 113
    Wapiti says:

    Remember the chaplain, James Lee, from Guantanamo? Held by the government for a few months in isolated pre-trial confinement. Ultimately released because the government wouldn’t/couldn’t pursue its case, then nailed with an Article 15 on other charges.

    It does seem that the military takes *most* seriously any insider willing to challenge the morality of our war on brown people.

    If any mainstream journalist gave a damn about Manning’s treatment, they’d be interviewing Lee.

  114. 114
    Maude says:

    @gene108:
    Crowley was hired to speak for the State Department. He has made some remarks that were not in line with policies.
    The Clinton staff didn’t like him and he hadn’t traveled with Clinton for over a year. Clinton threw him under the bus.
    It was a very touchy subject and Crowley knew that. He was not supposed to speak about the military or embarrass the president. He was not an advisor.

  115. 115
    The Dangerman says:

    @nitpicker:

    Look, the guy’s a public affairs spokesman for the State Department. That means you don’t get to say whatever you want.

    Ding, ding, ding. Exactly.

    Even worse than that, you don’t get to say whatever you want while situations like Libya are sliding towards a very dark place. In any job when you are the public face of a group and you pull that shit, you’re gone.

  116. 116
    AxelFoley says:

    All you motherfuckas so concerned about Manning, how do you feel about treatment of prisoners in general, especially people of color who’ve been unjustly imprisoned for decades?

  117. 117
    Kyle says:

    @Yutsano:

    I’m just not certain where that middle ground exists that can’t be regarded as interference.

    You’re assuming there’s not already political interference against Manning. I’ll bet you the decision to put him on a contrived ‘Suicide Watch’ wasn’t made objectively by the Quantico warden based only upon objective analysis of his behavior like any other anonymous prisoner.

    Obama’s compulsive compromise fetish only seems to work with right-wing opposition. With DFHs it’s shut your mouth and take it.

  118. 118

    Christ, this is the most depressing and fucking hopeless political landscape ever, isn’t it? Good thing I’ve just gone numb to it all and simply can’t bring myself to care anymore.

    At least that’s what I have to convince myself every morning now to keep my heart and my brain from exploding now.

  119. 119
    Donut says:

    @gene108:

    Nuh-uh, gene, I’m not a firebagger, and I’m not in that “Obama sux!” camp. Obama certainly has done some real good. I voted for the man. I will vote for him again in 2012. I wouldn’t want to primary him for anything, not with the opposition being what it is now, and will be in 2012.

    But that doesn’t mean when I think he’s wrong on a given issue that I will not criticize him on that issue. That’s just stupid. He needs his feet held to the fire. We all do. He’s a human being and he makes mistakes. As a taxpaying, voting citizen, I have not only the right, but the obligation to say so when I think he’s wrong.

    That’s all there is to it.

  120. 120
    SteveinSC says:

    @Mike G:

    What a gutless moral coward.

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, don’t be surprised if it lays duck eggs. This pattern has been developing for the last two years and the exquisite prigs at B-J run a continuous covering smoke screen. Look for a single goddamned issue important to the progressives and where has he stood up? Never. Even the DADT was Congress. Look at all the Democrats who fell on their swords for ACA and Obama didn’t even give a shit. Fucking Harold Ford II. The only thing Obama is worth now is the coming restocking of SCOTUS, and it will be the Senate which will have to do the fighting.

  121. 121
    Mike G says:

    @AxelFoley:

    Since you asked, I’m revolted by the number of people imprisoned in this country and the conditions under which they live. It’s both morally reprehensible and practically speaking a tremendous cost on society and the economy. CA for example spends more on prisons than on higher education. And a lot of it is driven by the same dynamic as the military-industrial complex — it’s a huge industry with a lot of profit for a the politically-connected in locking up large numbers of people.

  122. 122
    General Stuck says:

    I want Manning taken to a penthouse suite of his choice, with all the amenities, so maybe this bullshit torture proning from people who are really pissed that their hero isn’t being given a ticker tape parade, instead of being prosecuted for faux whistleblowing on the largely imaginary “security state” from paranoid libertarian types with terminal Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    I am serious, put Manning in luxurious settings until his trial is over. I don’t propose he be put in general population of the brig, because I don’t believe he deserves the death penalty, especially before being convicted. I would say just take him off POI status, but I doubt that would help to shut up the rainy day prison policy screamers.

    It would just be nice that posts like this to stop, that attach anything that happens, to fantasies we are surrounded by the east German Stasi. We aren’t, and there are no new invasions of sovereign countries, so Obama worse than Bush has some credibility issues. Obama Derangement Syndrome, same as the old Bush Derangement Syndrome.

  123. 123
    JMY says:

    @henqiguai:

    I could have sworn I read something a month ago that Bradley’s lawyer said that the guards were professional.

  124. 124
    Darnell From LA says:

    You can condemn Obama for putting PFC Manning on the “mother of all suicide watches”, but just imagine if PFC Manning did manage to kill himself while in custody:

    No amount of evidence to the contrary would dissuade Greenwald and the Firebaggers from believing Obama (and somehow Rahm) had Manning murdered to “shut him up before he could REALLY spill the beans in court!”

    Also, too, If you really want to know how PFC Manning is being treated you should check out his Attorney’s blog;

    http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/

    Sorry, but if he is being tortured, then I torture myself every other weekend, for fuck’s sake.

  125. 125
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @Nick:
    .
    .

    it’s entirely possible that Manning himself is pushing their buttons, leading to an even worse reaction.

    FTBW – For The Balloonbagger Win!
    .
    .

  126. 126
    Yutsano says:

    @Kyle: You’ve wandered off into tinfoil hat territory. Not getting out of that boat.

  127. 127
    cat48 says:

    @Maude:

    I heard that on TV Friday. They said that Crowley had worked for President Clinton and got along fine, but he and Hillary who hired him just never “hit it off”.

  128. 128
    Admiral_Komack says:

    Dude should have:

    1) Kept his mouth shut, or…

    2) Said “no comment”.

  129. 129
    JMY says:

    @SteveinSC:

    He got Congress to end DADT because that was the right thing to do and the best thing to do. Because it is a law the was created by, you guessed it – Congress.

  130. 130
    JPL says:

    @General Stuck: Actually Manning should just be placed with the other soldiers serving their time. What’s with this solitary confinement anyway?

    Of course some who view him as a traitor might want to have a discussion with him.

  131. 131
    Yutsano says:

    @JMY: You’re harshing his poutrage dude. C’mon, how else is he gonna show that one is teh worst president EVAR??

  132. 132
    Donut says:

    @General Stuck:

    You take him out of solitary and try him according the military code, then I will shut right the fuck up about it.

    And

    @ Nick – what the fuck difference does it make why I’m pissed? You apparently have it all figured out, so why should I even bother engaging you?

  133. 133
    henqiguai says:

    @Stillwater (#109):

    I mean, imagine how uncomfortable everyone would have been if a female soldier saw him naked? Can you even imagine something like that?

    Y’er just jerkin’ me around, ain’tcha’ ? Stop with the naked silliness. In this one incident it has been reported that he was not naked. In his shorts. Trivial, maybe, but still.

  134. 134
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @AxelFoley:
    .
    .

    All you motherfuckas so concerned about Manning, how do you feel about treatment of prisoners in general, especially people of color who’ve been unjustly imprisoned for decades?

    As the original Coke Brotha, I’ll field this question – The answer is, Also Too!

    And fortunately for us all, you, God and President Obama are doing something about it.
    .
    .

  135. 135
    JMY says:

    @Yutsano:

    You must admit that was a stupid. “Oh, it wasn’t Obama who made those laws, it was Congress. Obama just executes them.” Duh.

  136. 136
    Amir_Khalid says:

    @Wapiti: What I remember about Chaplain Lee is that he was essentially punished for doing the job assigned to him as one of the US Army’s (very) few Muslim chaplains i.e. ministering to the Gitmo detainees. As I recall, charges were trumped against Lee, which then fell apart for lack of evidence: first, passing “secret” documents that the Army could not prove were actually secret; and then adultery. I don’t recall that the Army’s physical treatment of Lee was ever an issue. Manning is accused of leaking military secrets to Wikileaks, and it looks like he actually did it. Maybe I’m remembering this wrong, but I’m not sure how Lee and Manning are comparable.

  137. 137
    JPL says:

    @Donut: He needs to be tried but taking him out of solitary could endanger his life. Most soldiers don’t think highly of those that release “so called”
    state secrets.

  138. 138
    quickly says:

    you’re about to get kicked off the front page by ABL. I’d watch it Cole.

  139. 139
    Corner Stone says:

    @henqiguai: In his rebuttal he claims he was forced to stand naked for inspection.

  140. 140
    Corner Stone says:

    @AxelFoley: I feel kinda “meh” about it.

  141. 141
    Suck It Up! says:

    oh please, you don’t come out against the administration you work for while still working there. If Crowley felt so strongly, then he should have quit and then spoke his mind. I don’t even see how he fits under team of rivals here. He’s not high level like Hillary and Joe and you don’t hear Hillary and Joe making statements like that about Obama’s decisions.

    Oh well, Dan Choi out, P.J. Crowley in as the new hero of the left.

  142. 142
    Corner Stone says:

    @gene108:

    The problem is bigger than President Obama. It’s about a terrified public – the people in rural places that are the last place in this country a terrorist would hit – that are kept in a state of panic, by Fox News, Republicans, etc. and vote according to that fear.

    And when you have someone who essentially normalizes that condition how do you expect it to change?

  143. 143
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I have a hard time believing that every indignity suffered by an incarcerated person is on a continuum with torture. That’s why I’m personally very reluctant to join the crusade.

    Shocked!

  144. 144
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mouse Tolliver:

    With -Democrats- Banksters like Daley in the administration, who needs Republicans?

  145. 145
    General Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Shorter Corner Stone – I hate Obama so much I will say about any kind of bullshit on him.

    Obama isn’t using terrorism and it’s fearmongering as a political tool like Bush and the wingnuts. That is just stoopid beyond all recognition.

  146. 146
    henqiguai says:

    @Donut (#131):

    You take him out of solitary and try him according the military code, then I will shut right the fuck up about it.

    You take him out of solitary and put him into the general population and, if military prison is anything like civilian prisons, that rosy cheeked lil’ boy will be introduced to whole new vistas of reality. Manning does not appear to present any sort of physical threat as a deterrent to predators (nope never been in jail, put hung out with too many really bad-asses dudes who had).

  147. 147
    Elia says:

    WTF is going on in this comment thread?

    I’m honestly shocked by the number of BS rationalizations I’m seeing here. Not to go all Broder on everyone but–my lord some of you clearly are just the mirror image of Red Staters.

    I mean, first off–to those who would argue that the treatment Manning’s undergoing isn’t torture? I’m just going to assume you haven’t done a lick of thinking or research about the consequences of prolonged solitary confinement. And I’m going to guess that you aren’t aware of how central forced nudity/sexual humiliation was in the previous administration’s no-touch torture policy. Either you’re wildly ignorant, absolutely full of it, or never had much of a problem with Bush’s detainee procedures to begin with. Considering Bush stopped waterboarding in 2006, at the latest, there’s no appreciable difference right now between Obama’s policy and Bush’s.

    If you want to argue that Obama’s just one man etc. etc. to a degree I’d say yes. But he also has more latitude as President than you’re giving him credit for. Further, most of the people who seem to be able to concoct any excuse imaginable for the President are also the very same who give him enormous amounts of praise for the those good things his administration’s been able to accomplish. Bit confusing.

    My take on the PJ thing is that Obama could easily have just let it slide. The idea that Crowley HAD TO BE FIRED is so brain-dead. Rules are made for people, not the other way around. Obama’s acquiescing to the temper tantrum the security apparatus must have been throwing isn’t about him personally being a sadist or whatever; it’s about him being weak. Ever since the torture memos were leaked, he has done absolutely nothing to challenge this wing of our bureaucracy. Nothing. And don’t say he has no choice because he needs to get reelected; the 2012 election does not hinge on whether or not PJ Crowley falls on his sword.

    And just in case this is an argument I might face in response to this post: I’m not a firebagger. I was absolutely in favor of the HCR bill and, before the past few weeks, have been a passionate and consistent defender of the President. But I’m not a Democrat or Obama supporter above all, and I’m not going to say this is acceptable to me as a supporter/voter. In the past 7 months or so, he has undermined nearly every pillar of the appeal he had back in the primaries–every stance that made him seem, while imperfect, a genuine improvement over another Clinton term; someone willing to attempt to push our corrupt institutions in a more positive direction.

    Whatever. I’m rambling.

  148. 148
    Donut says:

    @JPL:

    Bull. Fucking. Shit.

    What a cop out. He’s already being held apart from general population.

    They don’t have to follow the other procedures. He could be allowed to move around. He could be allowed to lay down and sleep when he wants. He could be allowed to have his fucking underwear without being treated like a suicide risk. He could be allowed to have books or pen and paper for more than a few minutes at a time. He could be allowed to actually see his visitors when they try to visit.

    He could also be given the military code’s equivalent of his 6th Amendment rights, as all accused Americans are supposed to get.

    Why are we even arguing these points? I don’t get it. He committed a crime. Try him. Carry through the justice process. Sentence him. Why is it so bad to criticize the Obama administration for allowing this to happen?

    The truth is, this kid embarrassed the whole military industrial complex, so rather than follow the fucking law, they are going to fuck him, as much as they can get away with.

    You’re okay with that? That’s cool with you?

  149. 149
    elliott.gorelick says:

    You know what. You can ask for a review or get personally outraged AND fire Crowley. What any decent human CANNOT do is say everything is hunky-dory with Manning’s treatment. The President is not God so he is not obligated to investigate the circumstances of every Federal prisoner (military or civilian), but once it does come to his attention, he is not allowed to just brush it off as not his problem. That is evil.

  150. 150
    Corner Stone says:

    Now that Crowley is gone, do we believe this will be the last time President Obama is asked about Manning’s status?

  151. 151
    Corner Stone says:

    I always enjoy it when someone lays out a reasonable critique but then feels compelled to add voluminous disclaimers about how they aren’t against Obama, they just disagree on this issue.

  152. 152
    dms says:

    And, yet again, this from the man who gives us all a monthly lecture on how we shouldn’t quarrel about Obama’s domestic policies.

  153. 153
    Beedy says:

    Here’s a question for the author of this post: Did this State Department employee actually go to the base where Manning is held and actually check out his treatment? Or (as I think is the case) rely on the inflamed media reports?

    Its just crazy to me that so many people could get so upset about the treatment of one person and yet ignore the treatment of people being held pre-trial all across this country. I had a cousin who was beaten to death by jail staff while in pre-trial holding. Yet his death was completely ignored by the media and was completely ignored by any official of the State Department; hell not even the janitor at the jail spoke out. And his case is not the only case. Its just sad that your spotlight of pre-trial holding and detainee treatment is so limited in its focus.

  154. 154
    Donut says:

    @henqiguai:

    Dude – I come from a family where both parents worked (social workers) inside of state-run prisons. You can dispense with the “I know people who’ve been inside” routine, because I am not impressed with it.

    It’s not the fact that he is in solitary that’s the problem. You know it well, so please stop. It’s what they are doing to him while he is in solitary that is the real problem.

    They don’t have to warp his mind and break his soul like they are doing. And yes, it’s wrong when it’s done in civilian prisons, too. The whole prison system is a giant freaking mess. Happy now?

  155. 155
    gn says:

    I’m so sick of stupid Professional Left tantrums. He shot off his mouth one too many times. He had a similar incident in terms of being “off message” during the Egypt uprising as well. Perhaps he was let go too hastily, perhaps he was not. But some bs about “war pig” blah blah blah—just another tantrum.

    Back to blackwaterdog’s place.

  156. 156
    Donut says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Do you think that might be because some commenters here feel like they have to attack as Fire-baggers anyone saying even mildly critical things about Obama? Might have something to do with it.

    I guess I am just full of “poutrage” though.

  157. 157
    JPL says:

    @Donut: No, I’m not okay with that and sorry if you read that into my statement.

  158. 158
    Maude says:

    @cat48:
    I read it in the AP article.
    I’m sad to see him go, but the knives were out and he knew that. Clinton had been castigating WikiLeaks for a long time.
    Crowley’s remarks on Manning must have set her off.
    Yesterday Clinton said that the USAF was carrying coolant to Japan. Oops! She mispoke.

  159. 159
    Donut says:

    @JPL:

    Didn’t mean to direct that at you specifically. My apologies for not being clear, too.

  160. 160
    Stillwater says:

    @Donut: Why are we even arguing these points?

    Because admitting them means Glenn Greenwald was right, which is UNACCEPTABLE! (BTW, did you know he lives in Brazil?) Or it means Obama is a lilgayboyhatingtorturer, which is also unacceptable.

    There isn’t a middle ground here – like letting the facts of his detention stand on their own, then rationally debate whether those facts constitute inhumane treatment, or a form of pre-trial punishment, of whatever. Nope. It’s all about GG and pre-empting criticism of Obama.

  161. 161
    Kyle says:

    @Yutsano:

    Really? It’s inconceiveable to you that Manning is being treated worse based upon his accused crime and his fame (rather than any actual predilection to harm himself), and that directions to do so came from above the cell-block warden?

  162. 162
    Corner Stone says:

    @Stillwater:

    (BTW, did you know he lives in Brazil?)

    What? He lives WHERE? Fuck that motherfucker. I hereby renounce my Glennwaldian lifestyle, and have removed my secret decoder ring that translates all his 5000 word posts into “OBAMA KENYAN SUXXORS!”

    Oh, and BTW, I hope you learned your lesson about giving that POS Stuck any room to breathe.

  163. 163
    Corner Stone says:

    @Donut: I never understand why they bother. They have mildly and reasonably disagreed so they are already consigned to a purgatory.
    Because that kind of thing can not be allowed to gain any traction.

  164. 164
    Suck It Up! says:

    Also, it appears that Crowley wanted to face the consequences. The reporter gave him a chance to take it back and he chose not to. He got what he wanted. You can all cry for Manning but to sit here and feel outrage and/or pity for Crowley is silly. He should have kept his opinion to himself. I doubt very much that he would have been fired if he was this outspoken in private and said these things to the president’s face. In any case, he’ll have hero status until the next person who is wronged by Obama. Give me a break.

    Oh and one more thing….speaking out against your employer is NOT heroic when the only consequence is that you lose your job. The label of “Hero” is used way too loosely around here.

  165. 165
    henqiguai says:

    @Donut (#151):

    You can dispense with the “I know people who’ve been inside” routine, because I am not impressed with it.

    It’s not the fact that he is in solitary that’s the problem. You know it well, so please stop. It’s what they are doing to him while he is in solitary that is the real problem.

    Couldn’t care less about impressing you, was just identifying the source of my information. That upset you ?

    Solitary confinement; didn’t even bring that up, except to point out that he is probably safer from physical assault. Based upon the couple of photos of him I’d seen, he would be meat in a general population.

    I have no idea what’s being done to him, beyond what’s generally done to hundreds of others in similar or worse situations in prison. Do you ? Got anything beyond emotive outrage based on vapor ? And for what it’s worth, from the little that I have seen about his treatment, I am unimpressed with his suffering. Read the routine articles about prison life in these United States (remember Angola ?), then get back to me about your outrage about Manning.

  166. 166
    Nellcote says:

    The rest of the quote from the original story:

    He paused. “None the less Bradley Manning is in the right place”. And he went on lengthening his answer, explaining why in Washington’s view, “there is sometimes a need for secrets… for diplomatic progress to be made”.

  167. 167
    Stillwater says:

    @Corner Stone: Oh, and BTW, I hope you learned your lesson about giving that POS Stuck any room to breathe.

    It was kinda fun to give him credit for a good argument for a change. But I imagine the status will return to quo pretty quickly.

  168. 168

    @General Stuck:

    General Stuck, be honest with yourself if no one else. If Bush did this to Manning, you wouldn’t like it. But now it’s your guy doing it, so you defend it. You have no moral compass.

  169. 169

    @General Stuck:

    Shorter General Stuck: I like Obama so much I will defend anything he does.

    “Obama isn’t using terrorism and it’s fearmongering as a political tool like Bush and the wingnuts. ”

    Oh, so we need to grope grandma before she gets on a plane? That’s a legitimate national security need? And better take x-ray pictures through her clothes, too. Just to be sure.

  170. 170

    @FlipYrWhig:

    “It seems to me rational and defensible to conclude that Manning is being treated in accordance with longstanding policy, accept DoD’s assurances of that”

    LOL!

    America: Are you guys in the Dept of Defense breaking laws in your treatment of Bradley Manning?

    Dept of Defense: No, we are doing nothing wrong.

    FlipYrWhig: good enough for me!

  171. 171
    JMY says:

    I guess Crowley is the new Dan Choi.

    I don’t understand this outrage. It would be one thing if he addressed his concerns privately, whether to the President, the COS, Hilary, Gates, etc., & when he felt that was being ignored with insufficient action, decided to go public. There is no indication that he took these concerns to the higher-ups. Until it is revealed that he did, then I will reserve my outrage for other issues. He’s not the first & he won’t be the last to lose his job over something he said and I know people have said worse. If Hillary felt his actions were unacceptable and wanted him gone, so be it. Crowley knew the consequences of what he did when he said it, so I don’t know why others are pretending to be outraged when Crowley most likely knew what was happening next.

    As far as Bradley, I don’t know what’s going on besides what’s being reported. I don’t know what to believe. One minute the military and Bradley’s lawyer say the guards are being professional, the next minute apparently he’s being tortured. One side says one thing, the other side says another. People one the left who don’t like Obama or his policies are going to be mad and those who support the president are not. Hopefully for all parties involved, they just get on with a trial.

  172. 172

    @dms:

    “And, yet again, this from the man who gives us all a monthly lecture on how we shouldn’t quarrel about Obama’s domestic policies.”

    Well it’s alright when he does it.

  173. 173
    Admiral_Komack says:

    Crowley made his remarks about Manning in response to a question at an MIT new media roundtable Thursday in Cambridge, Mass.

    “I spent 26 years in the Air Force,” Crowley, a retired colonel, said, according to blog posts by two of those present at the MIT discussion. “What is happening to Manning is ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid, and I don’t know why the DoD is doing it. Nevertheless, Manning is in the right place” in detention.

    http://www.politico.com/news/s.....51197.html

  174. 174
    JMY says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    General Stuck, be honest with yourself if no one else. If Bush did this to Manning, you wouldn’t like it. But now it’s your guy doing it, so you defend it. You have no moral compass.

    On the flip side, because Bush went behind the backs of Congress with executive orders, disobeying laws they put in placed, many liberals who hated Bush for doing that, wanted Obama to do the same because it’s an issue they support, such as DADT. You can go back & forth with that all day.

  175. 175
    eemom says:

    @AxelFoley:

    All you motherfuckas so concerned about Manning, how do you feel about treatment of prisoners in general, especially people of color who’ve been unjustly imprisoned for decades?

    As you’ve probably noticed, they don’t give a shit.

  176. 176
    gn says:

    @JMY:

    People one the left who don’t like Obama or his policies are going to be mad and those who support don’t hate the president and think that he’s the second coming of Bush are not.

    Fixed lol.

  177. 177

    @JMY:

    That’s ludicrous. Obama ordering a stop-loss order pertaining to DADT is NOT breaking the law. I’m sorry that many people still haven’t learned that.

    And by the way: I hope you don’t think that Obama has an unblemished record of hewing to the law, which will be ruined the next time he breaks a law or ignores the breaking of a law. Because that train left the station, passed out of sight, and is on another continent.

  178. 178
    MattR says:

    @eemom: It is an attempt to attack the critics instead of addressing the criticism and as such is not worthy of a reply.

  179. 179
    Stillwater says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship: Boggles the mind, donit?

  180. 180

    @eemom:

    “As you’ve probably noticed, they don’t give a shit.”

    What do you base that upon?

    A: “Wow, Bradley Manning’s treatment is awful.”

    B: “You didn’t say anything about [insert name here] so you must not care.”

    That’s a staggeringly simplistic analysis, don’t you think?

  181. 181
    General Stuck says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    I believe a man should keep his underwear firmly on at all times. So I against that and would have been against that as well.

    Other than that, not so much. Mr Troll.This isn’t The Bush Torture machine, as much as Obama hating idiots want to make it.

  182. 182
    JMY says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    I hope you don’t think that Obama has an unblemished record of hewing to the law.

    No, I don’t. But what I will not do his yell at the top of my lungs that “He’s just like Bush.” Then what was Bush? Just like Clinton? What was Clinton? Just like Bush’s daddy? I can go on. No president whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican is going to have an unblemished record pertaining to the law.

    Obama ordering a stop-loss order pertaining to DADT is NOT breaking the law

    If I’m not mistaken (and anyone who has more expertise on this subject can correct me) there were people who wanted him to end the entire policy with an executive order & their were people who wanted him order a stop-loss with one as well.

    The point was not to put you down or your concerns. Just to say that we can go back and forth with this comparison of Bush/Obama and it’s going to get us nowhere. 2 years later, it has not, because we still keep it up.

  183. 183
    General Stuck says:

    @gn:

    What a clown posse that has taken over Balloon Juice, apparently invited in one way or another. By the time we get into full Obama reelection mode, the stank of hate and depth of manufactured bullshit will make this place unreadable except for those with the special firebagger glasses.

    I figure to not be far behind you.

  184. 184

    @General Stuck:

    “This isn’t The Bush Torture machine”

    Wow, you really hoisted me on my own petard there! And here I thought you were an Obama blind apologist. Obviously I failed to notice that keeping people in secret prisons forever, raiilroading them before military commissions, and waging war on their mental health with cruel treatment by a Democrat is far, far different than keeping people in secret prisons forever, raiilroading them before military commissions, and waging war on their mental health with cruel treatment by a Republican.

    Obama signs an order codifying everything Bush did at Guantanamo Bay–oh, well at least it’s our guy doing it now instead of their guy. Biiiig improvement.

  185. 185
    General Stuck says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    Point that libtard puke funnel at the Moon. It might work.

  186. 186
    Sly says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    That’s ludicrous. Obama ordering a stop-loss order pertaining to DADT is NOT breaking the law.

    From Title 10, Subtitle E, Part II, Chapter 1209, Section 12305:

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.
    __
    (b) A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate
    __
    (1) upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or
    __
    (2) at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, which­ever is earlier.
    __
    (c) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) of a provision of law otherwise requiring the separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age, length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the termination of the suspension or within 90 days after the date of such termination.

    Relevant portion in bold. Among other things (like pregnancy or disability), the statute covering stop-loss policy does not include personnel who were terminated due to violations of the UCMJ.

    When you’re trying to argue about what does and does not violate a law, it helps to actually know what that law says.

  187. 187
    JMY says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    oh, well at least it’s our guy doing it now instead of their guy. Biiiig improvement.

    Lol, that’s the point I was trying to make to you.

    But here’s a question for you. What do you suggest the president do with Gitmo?

  188. 188

    Isn’t it crazy to hear “you’re just banging on this issue because you hate Obama for some reason!” That sure takes me back to the Bush years, with right-wingers would say to me stuff like “you hate Bush so you’re criticizing something unimportant like his invasion of a country that didn’t attack us!” or “the only reason you don’t approve of Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina is because you don’t like him personally!”

    With apologies to Peter Allen, everything old in politics is new again.

  189. 189
    eemom says:

    @MattR:

    no, actually it’s not. It’s pointing out that “the critics” are knee-jerk sheep who are reacting to the latest bright shiny object, rather than serious adherents to any kind of principle regarding inhumane treatment of prisoners.

  190. 190
    MattR says:

    @eemom:

    no, actually it’s not. It’s pointing out that “the critics” are knee-jerk sheep who are reacting to the latest bright shiny object, rather than serious adherents to any kind of principle regarding inhumane treatment of prisoners.

    Which is exactly attacking the critics instead of addressing the substance of the criticism.

  191. 191

    @General Stuck:

    Oh, why is there so much animus and negativity on this board? I wish I could figure it out!

    Why, by the time we get into full Obama reelection mode, the stank of hate and depth of manufactured bullshit will make this place unreadable to decent people like General Stuck!

  192. 192

    @JMY:

    “that’s the point I was trying to make to you.”

    You don’t have to make it to me; I know that you don’t care what is done as long as it’s Your Guy doing it.

    “But here’s a question for you. What do you suggest the president do with Gitmo?”

    How about the opposite of what he’s doing? Don’t hold people forever without trying them, or even charging them. Don’t haul them before top-secret military commissions instead of actual courts. Don’t say “there’s no evidence against this guy–better keep him locked up his entire life”. who knows? Maybe even say “enough is enough, here’s a plane ticket to Mecca, have a nice flight.” In other words, do the right thing.

  193. 193
    JWL says:

    “What a clown posse that has taken over Balloon Juice..”.

    General Stuck: I’m curious, because you’d likely consider me part of that posse.

    Have you any substantive criticism to level about the president’s performance thus far? If so, what bothers you? If not, why not?

    I’m uninterested in any ‘lesser of two evils’ rationale. That’s shooting fish in a barrel. Rather, have you suffered any disappointments with his political judgements at all?

  194. 194
    eemom says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    “You didn’t say anything about [insert name here] so you must not care.”

    It is not a case of “insert name here.” It’s a case of an entire institution rife with injustice, abuse, and human suffering, that none of you pearl-clutchers gave a shit about until Manning became a bright shiny object.

    And won’t after Manning is off the radar, either. Not even with respect to him, when the faux-progressive outrage du jour moves on.

  195. 195

    @Sly:

    I don’t see it. That bolded part applies to people other than those discharged for being gay, no doubt about it, but so what?

  196. 196
    gn says:

    @General Stuck: I have no doubt that as the 2012 election nears, the trolls are going to absolutely multiply and most of these spaces in the netroots are going to be unhelpful. But for now, this place is generally pretty smart; I just found this entry to be jumping the gun and some of the comments to be full of zealotry and stupidity.

  197. 197
    Elia says:

    @JMY:

    As far as Bradley, I don’t know what’s going on besides what’s being reported. I don’t know what to believe. One minute the military and Bradley’s lawyer say the guards are being professional, the next minute apparently he’s being tortured. One side says one thing, the other side says another.

    I think this is the most asinine thing I’ve ever read. It’s like you people are trying to parrot the same village arguments you otherwise so heartily mock.

  198. 198

    @eemom:

    “that none of you pearl-clutchers gave a shit about until Manning became a bright shiny object.”

    What is your evidence for that?

  199. 199

    @JWL:

    “Have you any substantive criticism to level about the president’s performance thus far? ”

    If you manage to get anything substantive from General Stuck, about any topic whatsoever, I will be in awe of you.

  200. 200
    JMY says:

    @Elia:

    How? I personally don’t know what is going on. Is this not what is going on between Bradley’s camp & the military?

  201. 201
    General Stuck says:

    @Elia:

    Well then, you cast yourself as superior in the know, tell us where you are getting your true fact info.

  202. 202

    @gn:

    “trolls”

    I don’t think a lot of you who use that word know what that word means. I’m making good-faith arguments to try and get a point across and make it easier for people to change their minds.

  203. 203
    JMY says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    You’re under the impression that I support the president’s policy on Gitmo – I don’t, even if he is in a tough position of trying to do what is right & do what’s best for nat’l security. I would love for him to just send the detainees to where ever they came from. When he tried to have civilian courts for certain detainees, Republicans AND Democrats threw a fit & blocked him from doing so.

  204. 204
    Corner Stone says:

    @JWL:

    “What a clown posse that has taken over Balloon Juice..”.
    __
    General Stuck: I’m curious, because you’d likely consider me part of that posse.

    President Stuck has been saying variations of this since Cole called him out on Al Awlaki.

  205. 205
    soonergrunt says:

    I thought this is what happened whenever a high ranking political appointee publicly disagreed with the administration or attacked another agency in public pretty much throughout the nation’s history.
    “You go off the reservation, you stay there” is, and always has been the way things have been done in pretty much every government in the western world since almost long enough to be considered…let’s see-carry the one, add 17…oh, here it is–effectively forever.
    This, however, is something different, apparently.
    Since Cole isn’t a puma as far as I can tell, and he’s sharp enough to know better, I can assume that he’s trolling his own blog. Or maybe I’m wrong, and he is that fucking stupid.

  206. 206
    eemom says:

    @MattR:

    The credibility of the critic is absolutely NOT irrelevant to the substantive merit of the criticism. Not in the legal system, and not in any rational world.

    Pursuant to your logic, when asshole AG Cuccinelli of my state issues subpoenas to UVA targeting the e-mails of a professor who studies global warming, I’m not allowed to point out that Cuccinelli is a neanderthal far right fanatic who not only denies climate change, but insists the earth is 6,000 years old. Instead, the discussion is limited to the substantive merit of Cuccinelli’s assertion that the professor is using state funds to advance a political agenda. That’s kind of a waste of time, imo.

  207. 207

    @JMY: @JMY:

    “When he tried to have civilian courts for certain detainees, Republicans AND Democrats threw a fit & blocked him from doing so.”

    Yes they did throw a fit. But he could have done it anyway. He is spineless.

  208. 208
    General Stuck says:

    @JWL:

    Only that he ain’t yet dropped his drawers and left a steaming dump on the blogosphere. That pro left drivel didn’t quite get er done for me. Though Rahm’s “retards” did make it move, a little, I think, maybe.

    Have you any substantive criticism to level about the president’s performance thus far? If so, what bothers you? If not, why not?

    And the stank I was talking about, in part, comes from the implication of this question. And a sort of litmus test of “I bashed Obama for this today” what have you done to be a good progressive. It is coded somewhat, but unmistakable.

    This is the self importance that can only be found well atop a high horse, or soapbox. I do not qualify my liberal creds that way. On this particular issue, There are legitimate questions as to the propriety of POI status. Everything else is by procedure, and there is no real evidence otherwise, outside the blogosphere with it’s varied agendas.

    I believe Manning’s father, can you give me a more credible source of info, at this stage?

  209. 209
    eemom says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    Sorry, but you have the burden of proof on that one, Master. I don’t have to prove a negative.

    What is your track record on the vast issue of prisoner abuse?

    What is the track record of any of the self-righteous assholes on this blog on that issue?

  210. 210
    JMY says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    How is trying to have one of the leaders of Al-Qaeda tried in federal court in NYC & being BLOCKED by Congress, a Democrat-controlled Congress at the time, meaning they voted on a law, which is what Congress does, to stop the president from doing so, spineless?

  211. 211
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship: The evidence is that they are criticizing the Obama administration, and are therefore the worst kind of scum, and the worst must be assumed about their motives, because if they weren’t subhuman monsters they’d be praising Obama constantly. Q.E.D.

    God forbid that people who oppose the way prisons are run in this country should latch onto a high profile, sympathetic victim of the sort of things that happen constantly in this country in order to raise awareness of the problem. Obviously, they should be using some giant black crack-dealing thug as their poster boy. Anything else would be unforgivably dishonest, and a sure sign of ODS to boot.

  212. 212

    The military industrial complex is never going to get unfucked until we get a president who served in the military and who can call it out on it’s bullshit and not care about being savaged by the press and the flacks the MI complex hires. Unfortunately I don’t see a Dwight David Eisenhower anywhere on the horizon so we’re just going to have to do it by ourselves.

  213. 213
    Mark S. says:

    @Corner Stone:

    You’ve been nothing but a thorn in the side of President Stuck ever since he got elected.

  214. 214
    MattR says:

    @eemom:

    Pursuant to your logic, when asshole AG Cuccinelli of my state issues subpoenas to UVA targeting the e-mails of a professor who studies global warming, I’m not allowed to point out that Cuccinelli is a neanderthal far right fanatic who not only denies climate change, but insists the earth is 6,000 years old. Instead, the discussion is limited to the substantive merit of Cuccinelli’s assertion that the professor is using state funds to advance a political agenda. That’s kind of a waste of time, imo.

    No. The sad fact is that even a neanderthal like Cuccinelli will find legitimate wrongdoing sometimes and the fact that he is a neanderthal is not a defense for those wrongdoings. So when responding to AG Cuccinelli you point how that his assertions have no merit and there is no evidence to back them up. Then you point out that he is on a witch hunt.

    Similarly, if you want to assert that Manning is being treated just hunky dory (or if you want to complain about his treatment) then you can also whine that those complaining are only interested in focusing on the next shiny object. But you are not arguing in good faith when you completely ignore the substance of the criticism in order to attack the critics.

  215. 215
    Elia says:

    What bothered me about the quoted portion is how close it was to the typical:

    Earth’s Rotation Around the Sun is Topic for Heated Debate

    And I’ll just add that it’s a funny kind of liberalism, the one that takes the prison guard’s testimony more seriously than the prisoner’s.

  216. 216
    4jkb4ia says:

    @soonergrunt:

    But this is proof that Crowley went off the reservation. “State and Defense disagree” was something we were very used to seeing in the Bush administration. The Obama administration that came in was comfortable having State and Defense doing different things and projecting different kinds of power.

  217. 217
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @eemom: I’ve been in favor of serious prison reform since before I started posting on this shithole blog. But, I guess it doesn’t count, because I didn’t check in every couple days to reaffirm that I do indeed want prison reform.

    I do this crazy thing called posting on the topic given. Sorry the subject never came up on this blog before. I guess that’s just another sign of what a terrible person I am.

  218. 218
    General Stuck says:

    @Mark S.:

    Nice that you align yourself with CS, someday, I will have to dredge up some oldies but goodies of corner stone dingleberry when it first arrived here. You two make a fine pair though. I must say.

  219. 219
    JMY says:

    @Elia:

    Who said I was taking a guards testimony more seriously than Bradley’s? I said I don’t know who to believe because I don’t. Of course Bradley is going to say he is being mistreated and of course the military is going to deny it. There are conflicting stories on both sides. I haven’t taken a side.

  220. 220
    JWL says:

    @General Stuck: Wow. That’s quite a tirade. Incomprehensible too be sure, yet nonetheless impressive.

    Still, you didn’t address my question.

    I tend to think whoever wrote… “[i]f you manage to get anything substantive from General Stuck, about any topic whatsoever, I will be in awe of you”, knew whereof they spoke. Perhaps I should start noting the monikers of those that post herein.

    Best of luck, G.S., and so long.

  221. 221
    eemom says:

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief:

    I’ve been in favor of serious prison reform

    wow! “In favor of”? Really??

    Why didn’t you say so before? Because being “in favor of” something is, like, SO exactly the same as knowing shit about it, much less actively working for it.

  222. 222
    MattR says:

    @eemom:

    Because being “in favor of” something is, like, SO exactly the same as knowing shit about it, much less actively working for it

    Is this where you are now raising the bar? Only people who have actively worked for prison reform may criticize Bradley Manning’s treatment?

  223. 223
    henqiguai says:

    @JMY (#203):

    I would love for him to just send the detainees to where ever they came from.

    And that’s part of the problem. A number of the current detainees in Gitmo are now stateless – even their home countries won’t take them back. So, what do you propose ? Do we repatriate them via a Marine Expeditionary Force backed insertion onto their shores ?

  224. 224
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @eemom: You’re right, of course. I’ve done absolutely nothing about it, because as we all know, if you don’t talk about it here, it didn’t happen.

    Good lord, what an asshole you are. You do realize that there’s a whole world happening outside of this fucking blog, right?

  225. 225
    henqiguai says:

    @soonergrunt (#205):

    Since Cole isn’t a puma as far as I can tell, and he’s sharp enough to know better, I can assume that he’s trolling his own blog. Or maybe I’m wrong, and he is that fucking stupid.

    Neither, I’d wager, he’s just cranky. Crappy weather in the Mountain State, and Manchin is turning into an even bigger dick than he can easily comprehend.

  226. 226
    General Stuck says:

    @JWL:

    I tend to think whoever wrote… “[i]f you manage to get anything substantive from General Stuck, about any topic whatsoever, I will be in awe of you”, knew whereof they spoke.

    When you ask a question other than a “when did you stop beating your wife” one, then I will answer. Or, the archives are right there for you to review for evidence of what you seek. I don’t respond to calls to prove my objectivity from ideologues, and self important liberals, or anyone else.

    And don’t get your hopes up, I’m not leaving BJ, for good, but may become even more an insufferable Obot as the election nears and the firebaggering around these parts accelerates, if it does.

    edit – though if you ask me a specific quesstion, about a specific Obama action or policy, I will respond, but not ones demanding anything.

  227. 227
    Elia says:

    @JMY: For one, Manning has not been making a big show of his complaints. His lawyer has, as any decent counsel would.

    My second question is whether or not you know anything about prolonged solitary confinement. And whether you feel that stripping him naked in response to what was clearly a joke is reasonable and deserving of equivalent weight. Lastly, would you find this so difficult to figure out if Bush was doing it? Or President Palin?

  228. 228
    Sly says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    I don’t see it. That bolded part applies to people other than those discharged for being gay, no doubt about it, but so what?

    Anyone who is separated from active duty because of age, length of service, or failure to take a promotion can be compelled, at the discretion of the President, into active duty. No one else. Those who were separated from active duty for any other reason, including (up until it was removed by the The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010) violations of 10 U.S.C. §654, do not qualify. It means that if the President issued a stop-loss order for servicemembers discharged under §654, it would be illegal, precisely the opposite of what you claimed.

  229. 229
    JMY says:

    @henqiguai:

    I know that’s the problem. Sorry, I didn’t make that clear. I was discussing this with Master of Karate and Friendship. I want him to do it, but I know realistically, he can’t. The point I’m trying to make is that even if I don’t like the policy in Gitmo, what other choices are there that won’t cause a political & national security problem?

  230. 230
    MattR says:

    @Sly: I don’t think it actually says that. I don’t speak legalese, but it looks like that subsection relates to the timing of when certain classes of people are terminated once the suspension described in section a (which is the actual stop loss) is itself terminated. I don’t see how it limits who can be stop lossed.

    @JMY: Reality TV show?

  231. 231
    General Stuck says:

    All the firebagger bonding going on in this thread is making my horny.

  232. 232
    4jkb4ia says:

    @General Stuck:

    I was going to say that in two of these Manning-related threads, I have actually not seen “Why I Hate Glenn Greenwald So Much”. Not by name. I sold the Greenwald haters entirely too short.

  233. 233
    General Stuck says:

    @4jkb4ia:

    I sold the Greenwald haters entirely too short

    One more left wing myth exploded, I suppose.

  234. 234
    Sly says:

    @MattR:
    “Otherwise requiring the separation or retirement” is the limitation (that part should have been bolded too… apologies). The entire point of stop-loss is to give the President the authority to suspend standard duty rotations and retirements due to age in times of military emergency. It does not give the President the authority to suspend the entirety of Title 10, and for good reasons. The President should not have the authority, for instance, to order someone who suffered severe brain trauma back to the front lines.

  235. 235
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @EGrise:

    Funny, actually BEING a POW doesn’t seem to have raised the consciousness level of one John McCain.

  236. 236
    NobodySpecial says:

    Stuck is a wannabe internet despot, has been since he was running around acting like the Shurrif of Balloon Juice back when the public option was being sold away. He didn’t get quiet until Cole called him on his bullshit and he took his ‘vacation’. Don’t bother him for substance, he doesn’t have any.

  237. 237
    NobodySpecial says:

    @Sly: And who, exactly, was going to run to court to prevent this executive overreach?

  238. 238
    JWL says:

    @General Stuck: Get my hopes up?

    Stay or go. What on earth makes you think I care one way or the other?

  239. 239
    MattR says:

    @Sly: The President is constrained on who he can stop loss by section a of the law you posted (stop loss = whose termination he can suspend). Section b describes then that supension is itself terminated. Section c describes how to handle the timing for a subclass of those who could be stoplossed in section a. I have no doubt that the President has restrictions on who he can stop loss. I just don’t think that section c of that law is what does it.

  240. 240
    4jkb4ia says:

    @General Stuck:
    There was evidence–the Kagan nomination thread did become that on short order. I guess once Amnesty gets involved you can’t reduce it to one person.

  241. 241
    henqiguai says:

    @NobodySpecial (#237):

    And who, exactly, was going to run to court to prevent this executive overreach?

    Um, how many Republicans were there in the House and/or Senate ?

  242. 242
    SteveinSC says:

    @General Stuck:

    making my (sic) horny

    It must be your fucking finger getting hard since it is your typing that seems to be affected. Or is your finger prone to sympathetic erections?

  243. 243
    gpleigh says:

    @gn: There’s also the matter that there is a legal investigation going on. Whatever your view about Manning, Crowley stepped in it.

  244. 244
    Sly says:

    @MattR:
    I see what you’re getting at and you may be correct; section c can be construed to apply to only specific cases of separation. But there are limitations on stop-loss, even if they are not explicitly referenced in the statute, and among those limitations are exemptions for things like disability, pregnancy, and, most important for this discussion, misconduct, I just have to find the relevant statutes or case law. I know the SLDC issued a paper saying that stop-loss does not apply to 654 discharges, and they were the biggest dog in the fight, at least on behalf of those who were being discharged. I’ll see if I can find it.

    Another larger issue, and more central to the point of gauging Obama’s dedication to the law’s repeal, is that 654 had its own waiver language, though not specifically worded or intended as such. The statute gave enormous power to the SecDef over investigative procedures, especially relating to evidence; power that Gates used to halt DADT investigations without the legal vulnerabilities of a stop-loss order.

    Of course, the signing of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act on Dec. 22nd should have, you know, settled the whole debate on whether or not Obama secretly hates gays.

  245. 245
    Pat says:

    Hmph… So much for hope and change eh?

    Heh!

  246. 246
    gn says:

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief:

    God forbid that people who oppose the way prisons are run in this country should latch onto a high profile, sympathetic victim of the sort of things that happen constantly in this country in order to raise awareness of the problem. Obviously, they should be using some giant black crack-dealing thug as their poster boy. Anything else would be unforgivably dishonest, and a sure sign of ODS to boot.

    Riiiight. Because lord knows that the smallish white guy who allegedly dumped the contents of the US diplomatic portfolio onto the net is just such an incredibly sympathetic face; why, he’s so sympathetic that they’re scared to let him into the larger prison population because people want to kick his ass; gosh, he’s nothing like some black thug of limited opportunity in jail for decades for distributing a small amount of crack while powder dealers get lighter sentences in many states and federally (although thank God this disparity was reduced during the 111th session of Congress and signed into law by the evil selloutprostitutionwhore torturer in the WH).

    /rolls eyes

    Give it up; this is too transparent. There are tons of innocent people who spent years in jail, some under brutal conditions, who could serve as the sympathetic face of prison reform. This aint about prison reform; this is about the continuing jihad against President Obama and everyone knows it. At least own up to that, lol.

  247. 247
    gn says:

    @gpleigh: And this isn’t the first time he’s bumped heads with the WH:

    The genesis of the breakdown in unified messaging on Egypt appears to go back to a Saturday, Jan. 29 Tweet from State Department spokesman P.J Crowley that was intended as a response to Mubarak’s wholesale dismissal of his cabinet a day earlier that Washington regarded with suspicion.

    “The Egyptian government can’t reshuffle the deck and then stand pat. President Mubarak’s words pledging reform must be followed by action,” Crowley said.

    Some officials now refer to that as “the Tweet heard round the world.”

    By the time that message appeared on Twitter on that Saturday, Mubarak had already taken his next step by naming a number two, something long-demanded by the United States, and Crowley’s comment was interpreted as the first U.S. reaction to Suleiman’s appointment.

    The White House was furious, officials said, and Crowley was ordered not to post potentially controversial messages without clearing them first.

    http://www.gazettenet.com/2011.....sage-egypt

    Sounds like a good guy who unfortunately in two instances didn’t manage to self-edit properly. The stakes are too high in his position, so they let him go. All of this conspiracy theory bs or attempts to continue with this large “POTUS sucks!” narrative is opportunistic and ridiculous. I have no WH source but could have said ahead of time that there’s a bunch of disagreement within the administration. How is this big news or an indictment of President Obama? We need to do better than this IMO.

  248. 248
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @gn: I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    I supported Obama. I voted for him. I’ll vote for him again, and I’ll tell everyone I can that they should vote for him again as well. OK? Why is it so fucking hard for you idiots to grasp that not everyone with a complaint is out to get Obama? Are you fuckwits really this simple-minded?

    “Durrr, he talkin’ bad bout the gubmint, why he hate Obama? Durr, must be a racist.”

    And yes, the guy who is considered a fucking hero to millions is a more sympathetic figure than pretty much anybody else who’s been in prison. Why? Because Americans just love the delusion that anyone who’s locked up deserves what they get. You find me an innocent man who spent ten years locked up on false drug charges, getting regularly beaten and raped, and I’ll find you 100 million Americans who are just fucking fine with that. If he was in prison, he must have had it coming, end of story.

    That’s part of why I gave up on prison reform. Americans like the way our prisons are run. They like the fact that a prison sentence is a sentence to be serially raped. They like the fact that those scary brown skinned people are locked away in insane numbers over bullshit drug charges. And they, like you, will cling to any flimsy excuse they can to justify it.

    Why don’t you own up to that, you worthless shitstain?

  249. 249
    gn says:

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief: No need to catch feelings. You say that you’re in an effort towards prison reform. Okay. Then you say that Manning is sympathetic. Hmm. Yet you think that innocent people are less appropriate to serve as posterchildren for the cause of prison reform because a lot of ignorant people think that all prisoners get what they deserve. So, if this is true, and the country doesn’t even care about the innocent, what makes you think they’d care about this guy, who’s not getting beaten up or raped, and who is charged with a really serious crime?

    I’m not sure where my comments indicate a tolerance for the status quo of the prison industrial complex. I’m simply rejecting assertions that the current Manning hyperventilation is about prison reform rather than about taking a smack at President Obama. And being one of his supporters does not exempt you from people who simply do not agree with your assertions and who consider a bunch of these torture accusations to be unfounded, hyperbolic, and not very helpful to a larger cause for prison reform.

    Have a nice evening.

  250. 250
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief: The prophylactic of mentioning your Obama support is wasted on these fuckers.
    If you have the smallest, mildest, most reasonable criticism then you are by default an Obama hating racist.
    And whatever your actual reason for discussing the criticism? Bogus. It’s really racism.

  251. 251
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @gn: Manning’s case has the advantages of a) already being high profile and b) being not only sympathetic, but admired by a decent chunk of the population. Oh, and c) he’s white.

    Not that spotlighting Manning’s case is any kind of silver bullet for prison reform; like I said, I’ve given up on anything good happening in that realm in this generation. But, his case is a solid way to slip the idea into the otherwise closed American mind. Get people angry over Manning’s treatment, then point out that millions more are suffering worse treatment for less cause, including thousands of innocents. A few minds might be changed this way.

    Mostly, though, it’s that he’s high profile. Activists can get straight to the heart of the matter without having to first explain to an uncaring audience the basics of the case, like they would with any other poster-boy they might choose.

    The deeply sad truth is that we can talk about innocent people being brutalized in prison all day long, but as soon as people see that your poster-boy has dark skin (like more than 80% of the prison population), any sympathy they might have felt dissipates like a glass of water spilled in the Mexican desert. The only way to get around the average American’s black=criminal mental filter is to gloss over the fact that the vast majority of inmates are minorities.

    Shit like that is why I gave up on it. (That, and some rather more important matters came up around 2002, as you might recall.) Americans are a hateful, scapegoating bunch. Americans are painfully lacking in empathy and common decency. Still, I have a lot of respect for those who can stomach the harsh, soul-killing work of trying to change that.

    Sorry for going so harsh on you. I’m just really, really sick of being dismissed as a ratfucker because I don’t lick Obama’s taint. Yeah, he’s the best President we can hope for the assholes in the American electorate to choose. He gets my support under my voting-in-self-defense paradigm. That doesn’t make him or the rest of the government above reproach, though, not by a loooooong sight. It’s sickening to see absolute support for everything the Obama admin and the military under him does become the litmus test for whether a person can be taken seriously here. But, I shouldn’t have gone off on you like I did, so I apologize.

    I stand behind all insults directed toward Stuck and eemom, however.

  252. 252
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @Corner Stone: Yeah, but it’s kinda fun watching them sputter when I say it.

    It amazes me that Stuck still forgets, though. He and I have had that conversation dozens of times, and every single time he’s shocked and disbelieving that I’m not an agent of Hamsher. You’d think a guy who’s made trolling these comments his entire life would have slightly better memory about the people involved.

    But, I guess I give him too much credit. The guy just wants an excuse to vent his oh-so-righteous anger, and he won’t let silly things like the truth stop him.

  253. 253
    Shithead #3 - formerly Gen Stuck says:

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief:

    Nope, you’re the idiot who punks his self making false accusations before reading a thread. Among other stupid shit.

    And has apparently become obsessed with me in about every comment you make, and what I write here. It’s a bad sign, and you should be concerned with your behavior.

  254. 254
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    For what it’s worth after 253 comments, count me in as someone who now want’s to see Barack Obama primaried for 2012. So very disappointed and disgusted in his cowardice. Can they take back the fucking premature “Nobel Prize” now?

  255. 255
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @Shithead #3 – formerly Gen Stuck: Obsessed? Dude, I often go for weeks without making any comments. Don’t blame me if, whenever I feel like engaging the comments here, I find you ruining every thread you touch.

    And, again, keep repeating that I got punked somehow. The more times you say it, the truer it becomes!

  256. 256
    Shithead #3 - formerly Gen Stuck says:

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief:

    Nope, you are obsessed and it stinks of blog stalking. I don’t care what your lame excuse is. I speak my mind like everyone else here, and it is comical you whining how I’m “ruining every thread I touch”. That’s what all the stalking types say. I’m sure you will continue it with your next comment, and thereafter. Let’s see if you can stop. prove me wrong.

  257. 257
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @Shithead #3 – formerly Gen Stuck: Oh yeah, blogstalking. That’s why I just recently went three weeks without a single comment. Because I’m stalking you.

    Good Christ you’re pathetic.

  258. 258
    Shithead #3 - formerly Gen Stuck says:

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief:

    Then go back to staying away if that will cure it. So long as you are here, you just can’t help yourself, it seems.

  259. 259
    Elia says:

    I don’t care about Crowley for his own sake. Whatever. He’ll be fine.

    Those going on and on about how this is SOP are eliding the main point.

    The point is that it would appear that Obama is not going to interfere in any manner with the treatment Manning’s received. If it turns out that, behind the scenes, he’s simultaneously making moves to get them to stop brazenly harassing Manning, then I will so fucking gladly eat crow on this.

    I don’t think he personally wants Manning abused or anything like that. He just seemingly has no interest in stepping on the toes of Pentagon and Langley. Either no interest or no ability. If it’s no ability, that’s something the American people should know and something he should endeavor to change. Not that he’ll do it, but at least get the ball rolling, however slightly.

    But I really doubt that POTUS is at the mercy of the national security state to this degree. I don’t think he wants this battle. Well, I’m sick of watching him take a pass on issue after issue. Not just cause I want him to make my righteous liberal fee-fees feel better, but because it’s bad for the country, bad for liberalism, and bad for the Democratic party. In that order.

    It’s really not that complicated.

  260. 260
    Nick says:

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief:

    Because Americans just love the delusion that anyone who’s locked up deserves what they get. You find me an innocent man who spent ten years locked up on false drug charges, getting regularly beaten and raped, and I’ll find you 100 million Americans who are just fucking fine with that. If he was in prison, he must have had it coming, end of story.
    That’s part of why I gave up on prison reform. Americans like the way our prisons are run. They like the fact that a prison sentence is a sentence to be serially raped. They like the fact that those scary brown skinned people are locked away in insane numbers over bullshit drug charges. And they, like you, will cling to any flimsy excuse they can to justify it. Why don’t you own up to that, you worthless shitstain?

    I don’t think there’s anyone here who doesn’t own up to this and hasn’t had beef with this.

    The question is, why is this guy, whose charged with a crime many times more egregious than the crimes of other victims of similar abuse, become the hero of it?

  261. 261
    Nick says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    But he could have done it anyway.

    Actually no he couldn’t because the City of New York refused to provide the extra security required.

  262. 262
    Nick says:

    @Master of Karate and Friendship:

    Maybe even say “enough is enough, here’s a plane ticket to Mecca, have a nice flight.” In other words, do the right thing.

    yeah, after they’ve spent nearly a decade in confinement with no trial, we should definitely release people who are either guilty, or if they weren’t guilty of terrorism, have been opened to the idea of it, back into freedom so they can either become terrorists again or begin a career as on. I’m sure when an ex-Gitmo prisoner, angry at what happened to him, decides to murder a bunch of Americans, the rest of the country will understand when Obama says to them “well, you know, I had to do ‘the right thing.’ You should vote for me because of that”

    sometimes “the right thing” is a really stupid decision.

  263. 263
    Nick says:

    @MattR:

    It seems like you are implying that those measures are not really designed to prevent suicide but instead are designed to inflict additional punishment based on the crimes the prisoner is accused of.

    I think I pretty much said this in another thread.

  264. 264
    Nick says:

    @Mark S.:

    And how do you know that, Nick?

    I’m related to one.

  265. 265
    Corner Stone says:

    @Nick:

    I’m related to one.

    So when a story like this one gets hot, you get the exclusive background interview for Mom’s Basement Times ?

  266. 266
    Jrod the Cookie Thief says:

    @Nick: Like I said, for many people Manning’s crimes were no crimes at all. At the very least, there’s a strong rationale for calling what he did a crime of conscience. He leaked those documents because to do otherwise would be the greater moral crime yadda yadda.

    You gotta admit, he at least makes for a better poster-boy than Mumia Abu Jamal.

  267. 267
    El Cid says:

    @Guster:

    The alternative wasn’t Crowley grabbing an AK and busting Manning free.

    Given where Manning’s being held, you have to admit that would be pretty clear evidence that Crowley was a very interesting character.

    Plus it would greatly increase the general awareness of the job of State Dept spokespersno.

  268. 268

    […] me, that’s the story. The story that prompted the story is this (h/t John Cole): P.J. Crowley, the state department spokesman, stepped down Sunday after saying publicly that […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] me, that’s the story. The story that prompted the story is this (h/t John Cole): P.J. Crowley, the state department spokesman, stepped down Sunday after saying publicly that […]

  2. […] concerns about excessive squishiness, I formally extend a guest-blogging invitation to PJ Crowley, late of the US State Department. We can’t pay you what the Iron Triangle did, but we’re easy to work with because we […]

Comments are closed.