The NDAA is Not a “Detention Bill”: Why Language Matters

“Outright media lies are easy to debunk. It’s the lazy, fact-free, inside baseball analysis that’s killing us.” -@Shoq

I have been getting bombarded by people on Twitter accusing me of “being on the wrong side of history” with respect to the NDAA simply because, I suppose, I am not exhibiting the appropriate amount of outrage to match theirs. My interest in politics, the media, and the manner in which narratives are created and disseminated throughout Blogistan, the Twittersphere, and ultimately to the mainstream media is seemingly gauche to some.

One need only look at the 800 plus comments at Balloon Juice yesterday (here, here, and here), many of them excoriating me for focusing on the “wrong” issue. The politics of the day is less important than the fact that our civil liberties are being infringed — at least that is what I’m told.

Nonetheless, as is my right, I will continue to focus on what interests me, no matter how unimportant it may seem to some — and that is this: the language we use to describe and discuss important prevailing issues.

Let’s take one of Milt Shook’s criticism of Glenn Greenwald — that Greenwald refers to the National Defense Authorization Act as the “indefinite detention bill” or the “detention bill”:

Lie #1. There is no such thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill”. To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama can veto this bill without killing the entire NDAA. He can’t.

Lie #2. Obama did not announce his intention to sign the “Indefinite Detention Bill” and for Greenwald to claim it’s “embedded” in the 2012 NDAA is an obfuscation, if not an outright falsehood, because it implies a possibility for him to veto just that “bill.”

In response to John Cole’s post decrying Shook’s statement above as “Jonah Goldberg level stupid,” and akin to calling someone a liar for calling a “Kleenex” a “Kroger brand tissue,” I called Cole’s example a “preposterous false equivalence”:

Calling the PPACA “Obamacare,” or calling a Kleenex a “Kroger brand tissue” essentially assigns labels to concepts that are by and large identical. A Kleenex is a tissue; Obamacare is the PPACA. The latter is a politically charged alias, but it does not substantially alter the artifact to which it applies.

“Indefinite detention bill,” on the other hand, is a name chosen to incite the emotions of people expected to be rightfully horrified by the mere existence of a “detention bill,” as if it were the primary law being enacted. It is not. What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.

In conclusion and with much love to my boo in WV, I have to call his example a preposterous false equivalence.

Language matters. The manner in which we describe things matters. Indeed, Frank Luntz has built a lucrative career on recasting and rephrasing descriptors for policies. “Death Panels.” “Medicare Vouchers.” “ObamaCare.” For example, I know that people on Twitter fear that the NDAA could be used to round up and silence Occupy Wall Street protestors. It taps into a fear of political dissidents being disappeared, as they so often are in dictatorial regimes in foreign countries. The NDAA does not allow for that.

The reason people think that it does, however, is because of the frenzy and hysteria that civil libertarian bloggers whip up through lazy and oftentimes manipulative writing intended to leave a distinct impression on their readers: that this “indefinite detention bill” is a clear and present danger, and an immediate threat to their own civil liberties, as well as the civil liberties of their family and friends. It is hyperbole on steroids cynically contrived to elicit a particular emotional response from the readers, knowing that most of them lack the ability to parse complicated and lengthy legislation, and the concomitant case law.

The responsible journalist or blogger would explain the nuances without the emotional rhetoric and agenda. One need only visit lawfareblog.com or Mother Jones (see Adam Serwer’s piece “The Defense Bill passed, Now What Does It Do?“) for such responsible journalism and blogging. Greenwald and his ilk, on the other hand, exploit the reader’s naivete for purposes of flogging their own on-going anti-government, anti-executive, and implicitly anti-Obama agenda. Anyone who doesn’t yet see his ongoing, anti-everything libertarian agenda dripping from every post he writes is either an armchair ideologue with no sense of history or proportion, or someone with a severe reading disability.

What he does is damaging to the political discourse because it requires an unpacking of the emotional rhetoric that obfuscates the underlying legal, moral, and ethical issues that should be in the public discourse. Instead we’re stuck looking at this visceral short-term hysteria instead of the underlying law which nobody likes.

Greenwald routinely engages in blatant goalpost-shifting: He writes about a particular issue, and after whipping up outrage among his readers, he turns his attention from that issue to a new issue, without making any attempt to defuse the outrage engendered by the original issue. As a result, the goalposts get moved from the original issue to the new issue, even when the new issue is not the basis for the initial outrage. His faithful readers, especially the lazy echo chamber ensembles in the new “old boy” media (many of whom use him for TV filler when they need a good Obama bashing rant), don’t notice or care that the target was shifted. They eagerly ride the outrage beast until it dies or Greenwald has moved on to his next screed with his legions of fans in tow.

For example, when Greenwald first wrote about the National Defense Authorization Act, he focused on the provisions requiring mandatory detention on U.S. soil:

If someone had said before September 11 that the Congress would be on the verge of enacting a bill to authorize military detention inside the U.S., it would be hard to believe. If someone had said after September 11 (or even after the 2006 and 2008 elections) that a Democratic-led Senate — more than ten years later, and without another successful attack on U.S. soil — would be mandating the indefinite continuation of Guantanamo and implementing an expanded AUMF, that, too, would have been hard to believe. But that’s exactly what Congress, with the active participation of both parties, is doing.

After the language authorizing military detention in the United States was removed from the bill, Greenwald deftly moved the goal points:

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Do you see what he’s done? He has taken the outrage generated by the horrifying thought that Americans could be snatched from their homes and sent to Gitmo never to be heard from again — a bill to authorize military detention inside the U.S. — and simply transferred it to a new issue — that the bill authorizes imprisonment without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.

Now, is this new issue legitimate to discuss? Of course it is — as is the entire bill. In fact, it is imperative that we discuss it — but it is likewise imperative that we are discussing the proper issue. Moreover, it is also crucial that we recognize that there are many folks who still think that this bill permits the government to snatch them from their homes on U.S. soil, when it categorically does not. Greenwald contributes to this ecosystem of misinformation. By continually moving the goalpost, he manipulatively maintains the outrage level in his ongoing and ever-changing narrative, which has already been largely inculcated in and accepted by his audience. Incredibly, the media routinely allows him — if not outright encourages him — to do so.

Greenwald relies upon a loyal chorus of Twitter followers, blog readers, and his friends in the media to rapidly respond to whatever narrative he concocts using this manipulative strategy knowing that few people — especially in the media — will do the work required to place his screeds in their correct political and policy contexts. Sometimes because they’re his friends, and sometime because they’re just, as my friend @Shoq often says, “pathetically lazy.”

[cross-posted at Angry Black Lady Chronicles]

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

511 replies
  1. 1
    sherifffruitfly says:

    ZOMG WE’RE ALL GONNA BE BRADLEYMANNING’D!!!!!

    But what will the johncoleglenngreenwald libertarians say????

  2. 2
    Baud says:

    I’m impressed at the amount of digital ink that is being spilled about an issue that will result in an exactly 0% change in actual policy.

  3. 3
    dmsilev says:

    This will end well…

  4. 4
    lamh35 says:

    Not for nothing, but I was in 2 seperate meetings with 2 seperate supervisors at 2 seperate hospital staff meeting and in both cases some “issue” that the hospital/lab was having was somehow a result of “Obamacare”. Now I don’t really care if someone calls HCR “Obamacare”, not really, but the I know for a fact that the 2 supervisors are Republican and the “issues” we were discussing had less than 2% to do with HCR and more to do with “tech error”. I’ve heard both supervisors talk about “HCR” but for these meetings, they blamed our labs problems on “Obamacare”. Which I guess is more “sinister” for them or something.

    But that’s not quite what all these posts are about but I just wanted to share I guess.

  5. 5
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    and an immediate threat to their own civil liberties, as well as the civil liberties of their family and friends

    ABL;

    Language does matter. Your points are well taken, yet you fail to grant the same dignity to those who feel no ‘immediate threat’ could very easily morph into
    something more craven, given the lack of pushback on detention by our ‘Leaders’.

    So, how about some mutual respect.

  6. 6
    Svensker says:

    There is a time to let things go. I’d classify this as one of ’em.

  7. 7
  8. 8
    dm9871 says:

    I have to say, I am just stunned by this attack on Greenwald. I mean feel free to disagree with him or to find him impolite and shrill. But in ABL’s critique, I hear a different sort of critique: more of a Greenwald is intellectually dishonest and Greenwald has all these unthinkingly loyal followers. Like him or hate him, few people on the internet are more intellectually rigorous and do as much to empower readers to check his work and decide for themselves. He uses so many links, so many citations and direct quotations. ABL’s critique feels off base.

  9. 9
    different-church-lady says:

    Gotta say I’m impressed by your level and dogged determination on this. It would have been nice if it hadn’t been kicked off by such a poorly written post by Shook. But you’re actually making an important and valid point, and doing so much better than Shook did.

    It would also be nice if we could decouple the discussion of language games from the discussion of Greenwald’s integrity. Because the heat of the second is going to always be allowed to distract from the light of the first.

  10. 10
    CT Voter says:

    The constant and inevitable goal-post shifting is something that activists do. Because they are activists. As is Glenn Greenwald. He’s not some disinterested observer, apart from the fray. He helps create and sustain the fray.

    He’s treated, however, as an impartial observer.

  11. 11

    the bill authorizes imprisonment without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world

    Would you be happier if everyone called it an “imprisonment bill,” then, since you seem to think that there’s a useful distinction between “detention” and “imprisonment.” I’m sure the prisoner will value your caring attitude.

    Language does matter, and it seems to me you’re playing a game of semantics by making a Clinton-like argument about what the definition of “is” is.

  12. 12
    Robert says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: I would say her points have been anything but well taken around here. She links to a piece that says “rhetoric matters.” The commenters scream that she has a lot of nerve discussing the issue beyond “NDAA bad.” She’s accused of trolling for discussing rhetoric. She’s told she’s on the wrong side of history. People are losing their damn minds because someone posted something that wasn’t “NDAA bad” on this site.

  13. 13
    different-church-lady says:

    @lamh35: No, you’re absolutely on the right track. The problem with catchy short-hand like “Obamacare” is that it becomes such an easy mental shortcut that people can use it to avoid addressing actual problems.

    This is why people spend so much time trying to drive memes into existence. Once something’s a meme it’s impossible to un-meme. It becomes a zombie mental shortcut.

  14. 14
    burnspbesq says:

    Do what you gotta do, but don’t get upset if we ignore you when your schtick gets tiresome.

  15. 15
    NR says:

    Shook’s “Lie #2” is utterly laughable. Nobody said, or implied, that it was possible for Obama to veto just the detention section of the bill. What many people have said is that Obama can, and should, veto the entire bill because of the detention provision.

    It is absolutely possible for Obama to veto the entire bill, and in fact, he previously threatened to do just that. I don’t know why Shook feels that he has to lie about what opponents of the bill are saying, but it’s pathetic.

  16. 16
    different-church-lady says:

    @CT Voter:

    As is Glenn Greenwald. He’s not some disinterested observer, apart from the fray. He helps create and sustain the fray. He’s treated, however, as an impartial observer.

    DING DING DING DING JACKPOT!!!!!

  17. 17
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @dmsilev: Truly astute. How many hundreds of comments you figuring?

  18. 18
    sherifffruitfly says:

    @Svensker:

    If it were just an “isolated incident”, I would agree.

    The reality is that this bullshit is part of an effort that has been going on since before Obama took office, to discredit Obama and Democrats generally. Thi

    This effort was not effectively combated (or even generally acknowledged to exist) in 2010, and the electoral results speak for themselves.

    Therefore the “just let it go” idea doesn’t resonate with me. Hit ’em. Hit ’em hard. Hit ’em again. Let’s give THAT a shot. :)

  19. 19
    NR says:

    @Robert:

    The commenters scream that she has a lot of nerve discussing the issue beyond “NDAA bad.”

    That is not what the commenters said, and fuck you for lying about it.

  20. 20
    different-church-lady says:

    @D. Cloyce Smith: If someone would just have the common sense to call it a “detention clause” or “detention section” we could all go home early.

    But no… willfully missing the point in the service of a greater outrage is never out of style.

  21. 21
    Cain says:

    civil liberties folks are supposed to be overzealous. The reason is that death of civil liberties never comes from easily identifiable threat but by thousand cuts. You have to be careful. Any bill that even puts explicit language about indefinite detention is troubling. I don’t know precisely what we can do.

    instead of yelling at Obama why isn’t there a ‘yell at your congressman’ effort going on?

  22. 22
    different-church-lady says:

    @dmsilev: Wait, you think it’s going to end?

  23. 23
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Robert:

    I just think we are going down the same road as conservatives.

    They are cannibalizing one another with gusto. Like the glutton who only loves his lunch, it is a Donner Party Roast and they are being torn loose from their hinges. We are on the same side, yet our anger over a multiplicity of disappointments does not trump our goal; Control Congress and the WH.

  24. 24
    different-church-lady says:

    @Cain:

    instead of yelling at Obama why isn’t there a ‘yell at your congressman’ effort going on?

    Well, first people would have to figure out who their congressman was. And that takes more work than making a cynical comment about the president.

  25. 25
    smintheus says:

    This is just incredibly thick. The damned amendment codifies and even requires an abhorrent practice, the holding prisoners without trial or due process for indefinite periods. It’s perfectly legitimate to call attention to that by identifying it as the ‘indefinite detention’ amendment (or even, yes, ‘bill’ because everybody discussing it knows it’s part of the NDAA).

    If it truly does forever exempt Americans in America from those provisions, big whoop. The vile thing is that it denies any prisoners their due process rights. I don’t take much comfort in the fact that these abuses are much more likely to be visited on other people than upon me.

    I think your obsession with terminology is just a smokescreen. You linked with approval to an utterly craptastic post by a polemic dimwit, and you’d prefer to pretend now that there was some small part of his piece that merited attention. Well, it didn’t. His piece is so over the top that it just merits ridicule.

  26. 26

    @different-church-lady

    Once passed, an amendment has the legal force of a bill. It matters little whether the “clause,” “section,” or “provision” was tacked on or part of the original text.

  27. 27
    John Cole says:

    Lie #2. Obama did not announce his intention to sign the “Indefinite Detention Bill” and for Greenwald to claim it’s “embedded” in the 2012 NDAA is an obfuscation, if not an outright falsehood, because it implies a possibility for him to veto just that “bill.”

    Aside from the fact that I still think it is absurd we have spent this much energy debating the name of the defense bill which DOES include the offending language, this is still one of the dumbest god damned things I have read in a long time. Obama can veto the god damned thing, whatever you call it.

    In fact, we are instructed to cheer Obama’s threat of a veto OF THE VERY SAME FUCKING BILL, which led to some modifications, but now we have to pretend Obama ZOMG CAN NOT VETO THE BILL.

    Every time someone links to that Shook piece, people get dumber.

  28. 28
    sherifffruitfly says:

    @Cain:

    “civil liberties never comes from easily identifiable threat but by thousand cuts.”

    Tell that to black folks when jim crow laws were passed.

    Tell that to brown folks in Arizona.

    Tell that to brown folks in Georgia.

    My guess is that the “1000 cuts” crap is really only WHITE civil rights.

    #privilege

  29. 29
    CT Voter says:

    @Cain:

    instead of yelling at Obama why isn’t there a ‘yell at your congressman’ effort going on?

    Why isn’t that a primary goal, under any circumstances? The vote was, what 86 – 13? Why such a lopsided vote? Why won’t people pick up the phone, send an e-mail, pick up the phone again instead of getting absolutely bent out of shape because of something Obama will do? Why are people so intent on ignoring one of the branches of the government and content to focus on only one?

    Tea Partiers certainly aren’t.

  30. 30
    agrippa says:

    I dislike these provisions. It is bad practice and bad law to ‘indefinitely detain’ without trial any person. These provisions are an unnecessary and fairly serious over reach. Current criminal law provides the necessary means.

    Congress passed these provisions. That body is responsible for them. Elect someone with better judgement.

    I do not actually care very much whether I agree with Greenwald or not. I do not find an appeal to authority any more convincing than an accusation of dishonesty.

  31. 31
    Robert says:

    @NR: Would you prefer me to say “a great number of commenters” said that? Because after following this through hundreds of comments, that seemed to be the gist of the argument. That and hating the structure of the linked article.

  32. 32
    Sad Iron says:

    I think your characterization of Greenwald being deliberately deceptive is way, way over the line. Greenwald has carried more complexity and intellectual weight in his body of work than you ever will. Period. Greenwald might be wrong at times (which he admits when posting corrections), and he invites debate when people disagree with him–in the end, the guy really fights the good fight. I would characterize him as anything but “manipulative.”

  33. 33
    CT Voter says:

    Every time someone links to that Shook piece, people get dumber.

    So why reference it?

  34. 34
    stinkfoot says:

    Wait, who is shifting goal posts? Like most of us, Greenwald has been responding to changes Congressional negotiators had been making to NDAA. His post quoting ACLU and HRW responds to the final iteration of the bill that the president will be signing into law. We can certainly debate the merits of his interpretation, but I think the fault lies more with the confusing nature of the law itself. Ambiguity in the language of national security law can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.

  35. 35
    Xboxershorts says:

    @Baud:

    I’m impressed at the amount of digital ink that is being spilled about an issue that will result in an exactly 0% change in actual policy.

    You’re right, it’s essentially no change in current policy.

    last week it was Plan B. The week before it was Horse Slaughter.

    Lots of ink has been spilled condemning Obama for the outrage du jour. Almost ALL of it coming from the “liberal/progressive” base. Many of those outraged have vowed never to vote for Obama again and to actively pursue a 3rd party candidate.

    In this election, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for the GoP.

    What we are seeing is the successful implementation of the divide and conquer strategy. Driven by a message that focuses on policy failures while completely ignoring the many policy victories.

    Having a republican house really IS a big fucking deal. Having a right leaning media really is a big fucking deal.

    And both of those points are important as we parse and digest what policy moves this administration can make, or has made. I’m pretty troubled by a “liberal/Progressive” base that has no sense nuance. And inability to interpret politics as they actually exist. To not make kneejerk judgments.

  36. 36
    sherifffruitfly says:

    @John Cole:

    Didn’t it pass the Senate with like 80+ votes?

    What PRECISE EFFECT will a veto have, again?

    Other seeing “Obama voted against the troops” commercials, that is.

    I do love how “progressives” have in effect been co-opted by the formerrepublicannowlibertarian dumbassess. Well-played; well-played indeed.

  37. 37
    different-church-lady says:

    The responsible journalist or blogger would explain the nuances without the emotional rhetoric and agenda.

    One might hope you would heed this advice more often in the future.

  38. 38
    Robert says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: That makes a whole lot of sense. It feels like there’s this sense of dissatisfaction because things aren’t perfect the first time. If every goal isn’t met at once (or every really stupid idea isn’t stopped in its entirety), the president/democratic target has failed. That’s not helpful. Change takes time.

    I understand getting mad. I don’t understand turning on each other because everyone doesn’t frame their anger in the same way.

  39. 39
    different-church-lady says:

    @Xboxershorts:

    Many of those outraged have vowed never to vote for Obama again and to actively pursue a 3rd party candidate.

    What, again?

  40. 40
    sherifffruitfly says:

    Looking through the comments, I do LOVE all of the slavish “zomg greenwald is soooooooooo TEH INTELLECTUAL HEAVYWEIGHT” and “zomg greenwald is soooooooooo TEH MOSTEST HONEST-EST PERSON EVAH”.

    Wake up dumbasses. He’s a fucking libertarian pundit. Period.

    Sheesh.

  41. 41
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @John Cole: It is impossible for Obama to veto the detention portion, even were he inclined to do so. He must veto the entire NDAA or none of it. There is no line item veto. That was the point people were trying to make. Whether the detention provisions justify a veto of the entire bill is the question. Are you being intentionally dense? In your defense, I guess, the Shook piece is pretty poorly written.

  42. 42
    salacious crumb says:

    anything to justify Dear Leader Obama’s policies no matter how much it resembles Bush era policies

  43. 43
    Crusty Dem says:

    burnspbesq
    For most, the 800 idiotic comments on this legislative clusterfuck would point to the flaws in your threat..

  44. 44
    Danny says:

    @John Cole:

    In fact, we are instructed to cheer Obama’s threat of a veto OF THE VERY SAME FUCKING BILL, which led to some modifications, but now we have to pretend Obama ZOMG CAN NOT VETO THE BILL.

    When reading ABL and Shook it’s bleeding obvious to me that what they’re saying is that Obama can’t just veto the offending language without also vetoing the full “massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year”. They’re saying that GG is misleading his readers to think Obama has such an option.

    Why isn’t that obvious to you, John?

  45. 45
    Xboxershorts says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Yes, I have been in a bunch of conversations where people are vowing to never vote for Obama in 2012.

  46. 46
    Ziggy says:

    The reason #1 is a lie is because it implies that there is a specific bill, dedicated to indefinite detention, that Obama signed.

    It implies that Obama is actively seeking the power to detain. That is false.

  47. 47
    gaz says:

    Jesus weeps.

    Are we fucking done with this yet?

    Or do we have to flog it so far beyond dead that indefinite detention will seem like a pleasant alternative?

    FFS

  48. 48
    John Cole says:

    @sherifffruitfly: Things change. Veto the bill, explain why he refuses to sign it, and pressure the House and Senate to remove the offending language. Explain this is consistent with the principles he ran on.

  49. 49
    different-church-lady says:

    @Xboxershorts: I was just wondering if it was all the same folk who made that vow a year ago, or a bunch of new folks.

  50. 50
    John Cole says:

    When reading ABL and Shook it’s bleeding obvious to me that what they’re saying is that Obama can’t just veto the offending language without also vetoing the full “massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year”. They’re saying that GG is misleading his readers to think Obama has such an option.

    Why isn’t that obvious to you, John?

    So in order to attack Glenn, we have to assume that everyone in the planet is as dumb as this comment section. Of course the entire god damned bill would be vetoed. Everyone knows that.

  51. 51
    smintheus says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    It is impossible for Obama to veto the detention portion, even were he inclined to do so. He must veto the entire NDAA or none of it. There is no line item veto.

    Who exactly did not know that already? Obama had threatened to veto the entire NDAA over this amendment.

  52. 52
    different-church-lady says:

    @John Cole:

    Of course the entire god damned bill would be vetoed. Everyone knows that.

    Dude, half the people in this country couldn’t find their own ass if you stuck a push pin in it.

  53. 53
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @sherifffruitfly:

    What PRECISE EFFECT will a veto have, again?

    I think this has been covered ad infinitum, but the symbolism would send a message of support to Dems in Congress, that might result in a Leader, leading.

  54. 54
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @John Cole: Or you could assume that ABL is a lying idiot for going back to this point. Is that the direction you want to go? What the hell do you think she is saying?

    Edited to fix typo.

  55. 55
    sherifffruitfly says:

    @John Cole:

    whoa. seriously? MAGICAL BULLY PULPIT whining? C’mon dude. Seriously. C’mon.

  56. 56
    John Cole says:

    @smintheus:

    Who exactly did not know that already? Obama had threatened to veto the entire NDAA over this amendment.

    Shut up you. Quit bringing up inconvenient facts. CAN’T HEAR YOU CAN’T HEAR YOU LANGUAGE MATTERS.

  57. 57
    Xboxershorts says:

    @different-church-lady: In my post, I refer to former Obama voters who are outraged over:

    1) Horse Slaughter
    2) Plan B
    3) Indefinite detention

    (All in the past month)

    2&3 are essentially no change in existing policy and #1 was a rewrite of flawed policy.

    There is no sense of nuance or actual politics in these outrages du jour.

  58. 58
    Chad says:

    @Cain: Because there isn’t the same amount of emotional satisfaction from yelling at a congressman, which could actually make a difference, no no everyone must gnash their teeth at Obama

  59. 59
    different-church-lady says:

    @John Cole: You want to talk about one thing, ABL wants to talk about another.

    It’s your blog.

  60. 60
    Danny says:

    @John Cole:

    Sounds lovely. Problem is there are 30+ democratic Senators that already voted for the bill and they will go public and defend their vote. Then you have a juicy Obama vs democrats-in-congress story which the MSN will report as Obama being extremist, out of touch etc.

    The problem here is that 80+ senators gets rewarded by their constituents for voting like this; the problem is that we all – John and Glenn, Barack and me – are out of the political mainstream. Begin with convincing America, then bitch at the president. Bitching at the president to convince America that you’re right is lazy and counterproductive.

  61. 61
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @smintheus:

    Just this.

    “Due process” should not just be for American citizens in America. It should be for everyone.

    POWs are “detained for the duration” but still have some inherent rights, and are treated in specific ways under international law that the US is signatory to. The deserting coward assmalistration made a point to exempt anyone detained as a part of the “war on terror” from those provisions, which is the sort of trick that the legal apparatus of a certain central European regime in the 1940’s pulled.

  62. 62
    John Cole says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I have no idea why she if flogging this point.

    Obama threatened to veto the entire bill before. Some changes were made. They did not satisfy many civil libertarians. Obama removed his veto threat anyway, citing the changes. Now everyone who still wants Obama to veto the bill is a lying liar who is using evasive language and is misleading people and Obama for some reason can no longer veto the entire bill because SHUT UP FIREBAGGER THAT’S WHY DO YOU WANT TO ELECT SARAH PALIN.

    That is where we are in this debate.

  63. 63
    smintheus says:

    @John Cole: Well Obama did issue the veto threat in Muslim, which was unwise, so I guess there might be some people who didn’t understand the message.

  64. 64
    sherifffruitfly says:

    I’m old enough to remember when white liberals gave Clinton a total pass for DADT and DOMA, citing the fact that Congress was prepared to override a veto.

    And I’m white enough to never ask why Obama doesn’t get precisely the same pass from white liberals, for precisely the same reason.

  65. 65
    different-church-lady says:

    @Danny:

    Begin with convincing America, then bitch at the president.

    To be fair, there’s plenty of time for both.

    Bitching at the president to convince America your fellow bloggers that you’re right is lazy and counterproductive.

    Fixeth.

  66. 66
    NR says:

    @sherifffruitfly:

    Didn’t it pass the Senate with like 80+ votes?

    Isn’t the Senate only one half of Congress?

  67. 67
    Danny says:

    @John Cole:

    So in order to attack Glenn, we have to assume that everyone in the planet is as dumb as this comment section. Of course the entire god damned bill would be vetoed. Everyone knows that.

    IOW, It’s impossible for GG to mislead his readers because they are to smart to allow themselves to be misled. Quod erat demonstrandum. Pathetic, man.

  68. 68
    gaz says:

    *shakes head*

    I think I’m about two front page posts (on this topic) away from vacating balloon juice entirely for at least 6 months.

    Am I the only one?

    *headdesk*
    *headdesk*
    *headdesk*

  69. 69
    Chad says:

    @John Cole: No, everyone doesn’t. That’s the point.

  70. 70
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @John Cole: My guess is that she believes that there is a significant population out there who think that is a specific indefinite detention bill. There are plenty of people who have referred to it that way. Maybe she is wrong, I don’t know.

  71. 71
    different-church-lady says:

    @John Cole:

    That is where we are in this debate.

    No, that’s where you are in this debate. Some of us have moved on to more interesting matters.

  72. 72
    NR says:

    @sherifffruitfly: And out come the charges of racism. This is always a good way to tell when Obama supporters have lost an argument on policy.

  73. 73
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @NR:

    Um, I guess it is!

    Some people never watched Schoolhouse Rock back in the 70’s, I guess.

  74. 74
    Yutsano says:

    @sherifffruitfly: The irony, of course, is that you criticize a South Asian for white privilege. Damned anonymity of the Internet.

  75. 75
    The Other Chuck says:

    I don’t get it. There’s a provision in a bill that carves out a permanent exemption to Habeas Corpus if the magical T-word is used, and you’re fucking *scolding* us for pointing this out?

    My imagination isn’t big enough to encompass the range of things you can go fuck yourself with.

  76. 76
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @gaz:

    Six hours, I’ll buy. Perhaps six days.

    But you will come back. You need the Juice. Because we go through these occasional shitstorms and then we calm down and discuss serious matters, like whether Enterprise is superior to Star Trek Voyager or not.

  77. 77
    Danny says:

    permanent exemption to Habeas Corpus if the magical T-word is used, and you’re fucking scolding us for pointing this out

    For throwing it fully in Obama’s lap. No-one managed to convince the country that this is wrong, thus 80+ senators voted “aye”. There’s your problem.

  78. 78
    different-church-lady says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    “Due process” should not just be for American citizens in America. It should be for everyone.

    Now, you see, that would actually be an interesting discussion and examination. But instead of that, we have to deal with 934 variations of “Now the president can lock me up at will!”

    Why it’s so hard for people to get this I personally don’t understand. Maybe it’s because I get more pleasure from understanding than outrage.

  79. 79
    Brian R. says:

    @Yutsano:

    In our defense, we outsourced white privilege to India a couple years ago, along with everything else.

  80. 80
    John Cole says:

    I’m old enough to remember when white liberals gave Clinton a total pass for DADT and DOMA, citing the fact that Congress was prepared to override a veto.

    I’m old enough to remember he SHEER HELL we just went through getting rid of DADT and the fact that we still can’t come anywhere near overturning DOMA. I’d have preferred Clinton took a stand.

  81. 81
    dm9871 says:

    I wonder if underneath some of this disagreement isn’t two views of indefinite detention.

    To ABL and those not-so-upset about it, it is, perhaps, a provision that will rarely-if-ever used, and when it is used, it will be used against probable terrorists. And anyway, we can trust Obama to use it judiciously and not misuse it.

    To civil libertarians, it is a reckless abrogation of an 800 year old right – the right to habeas corpus. It was passed by a reckless McCarthyite Congress. The president doesn’t even have the courage to stand up for arguably the oldest and most central right of American law.

  82. 82
    Chad says:

    @The Other Chuck: yes yes because that’s the only salient point here. (snark)

  83. 83
    Pillsy says:

    @Cain:

    I think there’s no push to yell at Congress because people are still fighting the last war about this. During the Bush years, progressives tended to frame issues with the “War on Terror” almost entirely in terms of the Administration’s abuse of Executive power. It was a major part of the problem, but abuse of Executive power wasn’t the fundamental issue with indefinite detention! Progressives shouldn’t like it any better when Congress is behind it, and, lo and behold, they don’t, but they still think it all boils down to the President abusing his power.

  84. 84
    agrippa says:

    PBO had to veto the entire NDAA. How likely was that?

    Congress passed this NDA with these provisions, and Democratic Senators voted for it. Congress knew that he had to veto the entire bill – not just these provisions.

  85. 85
    LT says:

    Cole, what the fuck? Just what the fuck and why do you let this shit go on in your house?

  86. 86
    Jay says:

    Melissa Harris Perry was right to point out that there is something ugly to calling black supporters of President Obama “OBots,” given that white racists have long believed blacks lack agency.

    President Obama has agency. He is a powerful and accomplished man. Supporters of this President who place ALL of the blame on Congress or take the “ZOMG! He can’t POSSIBLY veto bill x” line are doing this President-who, on record alone, is saner than the Republican options for 2012-no favors.

    Find out who your Congressperson is. Write him or her.

    But goddamnit, after you do that, call the White House switchboard.

  87. 87
    The Other Chuck says:

    Yunno, if Obama really wants to burnish his independent bona fides, he could just make them override his veto.

    When they call him soft on terra or whatever, he can just respond with some mild blandishment like “At times the Executive may differ with Congress and this is one and by the way I GOT BIN LADEN SO SUCK ON THAT.”

    But I really don’t care anymore. I don’t. Voting next year is just an exercise in making the ride down a little more gradual, that’s all.

  88. 88
    agrippa says:

    @dm9871:

    Intersting.
    You praise with faint damns Congress and blame PBO for not doing something that you know full well he was not going to do: veto the entire bill.

    well played

  89. 89
    Chad says:

    @dm9871: Stop, stop trying to paint people who disagree with you as people who don’t understand habeus corpus or cowards who don’t care about freedom. For eight years progressives chided Bush for having a Manichean outlook and have then immediately turned around and adopted one for their political enemies. There is a legitimate disagreement on this blog about who is responsible and what is being done but to argue that your opponents simply don’t care about freedom enough is why I doubt I’ll ever call myself a progressive, liberal or whatever it is sanctimonious people are calling themselves to feel better than others

  90. 90
    gaz says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: We both know that. heh.

    But hyperbole is the theme of this whole thread, is it not?

    =P

  91. 91
    sherifffruitfly says:

    @John Cole:

    I get how you’re mad at the bill. Solution: stop voting for republicans.

    I don’t get how you’re mad at Obama not doing (insert favorite action here) when doing that WON’T AFFECT THE BILL.

    Obama threw his Presidential hissy-fit veto-threat to get altered as much as he could, given the REALITY of the Congress we have, and called it a day. End.

    I’m old enough to remember he SHEER HELL we just went through getting rid of DADT – GOOD FUCKING JOB OBAMA!

    Fixed it for you. :P

    and the fact that we still can’t come anywhere near overturning DOMA.

    I, too, am very sorry that people vote for republicans.

  92. 92
    El Cid says:

    I encountered discussions of the indefinite detention wording / sections / amendments / things on this bill by means other than Glenn Greenwald.

    Now, a historiography of claims about this bill should certainly include him, but there’s a weird conspiracy theorist feel to an obsessive focus on Greenwald — as though, if GG didn’t exist, no one would be arguing such things.

    I could be empirically wrong. It could be that the entire discussion of the new laws within the new law would not have been discussed without individuals X, Y, and Z blogging. Sometimes that’s the case.

  93. 93
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @dm9871:

    Amazingly, those same people pointed out to Rethuglicans when they were giving away the entire habeas corpus store that “do you want to give President Hillary Clinton this power?”

    The Rethuglicans, of course, were secure in the knowledge that no Democrat ever again would be in the White House, so this wasn’t a problem at all. Besides, the deserting coward would only use this power against “the bad guys”. Never mind that the definition of “the bad guys” might change, and Hillary Clinton might define sacks of moldy shit like Jim Demented as “a bad guy”.

    The bottom line is that this provision shits on 800 fucking years of English and American legal tradition for the sake of killing a few more brown muslim types…and anyone else who gets in our way.

  94. 94
    NR says:

    @The Other Chuck: A critical fact that is getting lost here is that the NDAA did not pass the House with a veto-proof margin.

  95. 95
    gaz says:

    @dm9871: And another view is – this shits on 800 years of HC, but it’s essentially the same state of affairs as it’s been since 9/11 …

    Oh god. Now you got me talking about this again.

    Forget I said anything.

  96. 96
    different-church-lady says:

    @El Cid: I would estimate somewhere between half and two thirds of people I’ve seen ‘discuss’ the bill have cited Greenwald first.

  97. 97
    Pillsy says:

    @The Other Chuck:

    So now the problem is that Obama won’t make a futile, symbolic gesture…?

  98. 98
    smintheus says:

    @Chad:

    stop trying to paint people who disagree with you as people who don’t understand habeus habeas corpus

    Fixed.

  99. 99
    different-church-lady says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Because we go through these occasional shitstorms and then we calm down and discuss serious matters, like whether Enterprise is superior to Star Trek Voyager or not.

    Star Trek? That’s the show about Vulcan culture, isn’t it?

  100. 100
    dm9871 says:

    @ agrippa: “McCarthyite” isn’t faint, is it? I can’t believe that as many Democrats in Congress supported the bill as supported it. They are a despicable bunch. It turns out people who believe in basic constitutional liberties are few and far between even in the Democratic Party. But one person who claimed to care about this issue could do something about it. He’s the president. In terms of preventing a bill from becoming law, he has more power than 50 Senators. That’s why I focus on him.

    @Chad: Well but isn’t that exactly it? The question is, how much do you care about this particular freedom? If you’re Obama and you care about it a whole lot, you veto the bill. If you only care about it a little, you don’t. The same for members of Congress: the question is how much do you care about habeas corpus.

  101. 101
    LT says:

    @Sad Iron:

    I think your characterization of Greenwald being deliberately deceptive is way, way over the line. Greenwald has carried more complexity and intellectual weight in his body of work than you ever will. Period. Greenwald might be wrong at times (which he admits when posting corrections), and he invites debate when people disagree with him—in the end, the guy really fights the good fight. I would characterize him as anything but “manipulative.”

    This is the really sick ingredient in ABL’s and other “Firebagger!” screamers sauce. They MUST, at all costs, try to make you believe that Greenwald’s true motive – his entire reason for being – is to be mean to Obama. It is so fundamentally childish.

    The saddest thing about that: that John let that kind of shit become part of this blog’s voice. ABL is probably a hysterically funny, over-the-mooon kind human being, but almost all issues where the Obama admin gets critiqued she does this awful shit. And we now have a BIG voice on the internet that starts this kind of bullshit flame war – and distracts from the actually important issue of indefinite detention.

  102. 102
    smintheus says:

    @different-church-lady: I haven’t read Greenwald regarding this amendment. I read the amendment. It strikes me as bizarre to let discussion of this amendment and the NDAA revolve around parsing the phraseology of a single blogger.

  103. 103
    Chad says:

    @smintheus: +100 you winz the internet

  104. 104
    not motorik says:

    Calling someone an Obot is racist?!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    This shit’s gettin’ so good.

  105. 105
    LT says:

    @Danny:

    IOW, It’s impossible for GG to mislead his readers because they are to smart to allow themselves to be misled. Quod erat demonstrandum. Pathetic, man.

    Hey, fuck you. Greenwald made it perfectly clear that this was part of NDAA. What fucking liars.

  106. 106
    different-church-lady says:

    @smintheus: I agree it’s bizarre. Maybe I hang around the wrong parts of the internet.

    I don’t really understand what his power is, but “Glenn Greenwald rules their world” keeps running through my head as a new category.

  107. 107
    El Cid says:

    @smintheus: But other people read Greenwald, so Greenwald must take priority over the subject matter itself.

  108. 108
    Chad says:

    @dm9871: I disagree. If you’re Obama you ask, “is this continuance of established policy worth vetoing? If so what effect will my veto have? If 80+ senators voted for it they can override my veto and given my relationship with the House would they override my veto as well or get on my side of this thing? How would the subsequent fight affect other salient legislation and the elections next year?” Not saying he came to the right conclusion but I’m saying it’s not as cut and dry as “do you love freedom?”

  109. 109
    Danny says:

    @LT:
    Who are you calling a liar – me? Then you better show where I lied.

    But that is what Shook and ABL are saying. I don’t read GG so I wouldnt know. I think the guy’s a fucking asshole so it wouldnt surprise me.

  110. 110
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Greenwald’s greatest sin is that he’s been pretty consistently pointing out that there are indeed a lot of things that Obama said he’d address (specifically, “war on terror” excesses of the prior fascist regime) that he hasn’t really addressed. At first, I thought this was Obama, the constitutional scholar, insisting that Congress get back its mojo after prostrating itself before the Imperial Executive for six years, as Rethuglicans forgot that they controlled a co-equal branch in the name of Partei unity, supporting the Dear Leader at all times, in a manner that mirrored how seriously the rump of the Reichstag opposed the leader and chancellor…meeting every few years to reauthorize the Enabling Act of 1933, for example.

    This entire controversy is just a reflection of Greenwald’s ongoing concern for the last three years.

  111. 111
    Corner Stone says:

    This is quite possibly the stupidest double down (triple down?) I’ve seen on this blog.
    It would be kind to say it’s an unusual outcome. But it’s not surprising in the least.

  112. 112
    Corner Stone says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: If GWB were still president ABL and her twitter jihad coterie would be citing GG as a first-past-the-post source for critique and criticism.

  113. 113
    Chad says:

    @not motorik: you’re also oversimplifying. The argument is that given prevalent notions about the agency of African Americans, i.e. they’re slaves on the Democratic plantation, they only support Obama because he’s black , etc. etc. calling black Obama supporters Obots a derivative of robots is problematic.

  114. 114
    Corner Stone says:

    I’m not sure how anyone who quotes @Shoq has the balls to criticize a Greenwald on writing style.

  115. 115
    Lojasmo says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    And, I will point out for AT LEAST THE FOURTH FUCKING TIME…this passed with SUPERMAJORITIES IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE. It is VETO PROOF!

  116. 116
    different-church-lady says:

    @Corner Stone: You can’t quit us. We get it.

  117. 117
    Danny says:

    @Lojasmo:
    But THE PROBLEM IS OBAMA. Get with the fucking program, or you’re not for civil liberties. Not like a tru firebagger.

  118. 118
    NR says:

    @Lojasmo: And I will point out for at least the fourth fucking time: It did not pass with a supermajority in the House. It is not veto proof.

    Learn to fucking read.

  119. 119
    Chad says:

    @Corner Stone: so you think they have no principles?

  120. 120
    Corner Stone says:

    The other interesting part is now ABL is claiming GG “had a hand in drafting” the statements by the ACLU and HRW.
    Which is a way to further impugn any information from those organizations with guilt by association.
    It’s more than a little kooky at this point.

  121. 121
    John Cole says:

    Here is Greenwald CONFUSING AND MISLEADING HIS READERS WITH SKETCHY LANGUAGE:

    Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

    That’s the very first fucking sentence of his post. Clearly he is intent on misleading his readers.

  122. 122
    Lojasmo says:

    @NR:

    283-136. You find dividing by two to be a difficult task? Perhaps you should abandon the Internet.

  123. 123
    smintheus says:

    @El Cid: Thus endless discussions of a lame attempt by a half-witted blogger to twit GG, rather than just talking about the provisions of one of the very few bills Obama has ever threatened to veto.

  124. 124
    NR says:

    @Lojasmo: Obviously you do. Two thirds of 435 is 290.

  125. 125
    Snowball says:

    @dm9871:

    But one person who claimed to care about this issue could do something about it. He’s the president. In terms of preventing a bill from becoming law, he has more power than 50 Senators. That’s why I focus on him.

    The bill passed by two thirds in both houses. They would have overriden his veto. So exactly what could Obama have done?

    Shouldn’t your focus be on Congress so that Obama’s veto would be useful? And good luck, you even had so called good progressives such as Kerry and Klobuchar voting for it.

  126. 126
    Corner Stone says:

    @Lojasmo: What was the number in the House?

  127. 127
    Chad says:

    Basically the left is cleaving because the President’s supporters aren’t sufficiently pure “progressives”

  128. 128
    different-church-lady says:

    @John Cole: Hell man, I didn’t realize they could embed bills in acts. I learn so much here.

  129. 129
    Corner Stone says:

    @Chad:

    so you think they have no principles?

    No, of course not. They clearly have at least one.

  130. 130
    Chad says:

    @Corner Stone: which would be?

  131. 131
    agrippa says:

    @dm9871:

    I agree that few of those people in Washington – whatever the party – have much concern about civil liberties. If they did have any serious concern, these provisions ( or the Patriot Act, come to that) would never have passed.

    My point is that a NDAA bill was not going to be vetoed. It was an empty threat.

    Stop electing people to Congress who write and pass provisions of this sort.

  132. 132
    LT says:

    Oh now this is truly ugly.

    ABL wrote this:

    Do you see what he’s done? He has taken the outrage generated by the horrifying thought that Americans could be snatched from their homes and sent to Gitmo never to be heard from again—a bill to authorize military detention inside the U.S.—and simply transferred it to a new issue—that the bill authorizes imprisonment without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.

    You are now officially caught out, ABL. This is the post your excerpt comes from (which you didn’t link to, for now obvious reasons). And this is what it says in the post, right up at the top:

    Here are the bill’s three most important provisions:
    __
    (1) mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; it also unquestionably permits (but does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the civilian court system (Sec. 1032);

    I don’t know how this could be more clear. he goes in in several instances to talk about detention without trial – period.

    A short time later he writes this:

    And yet here we have the Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, acting not only to re-affirm the war but to expand it even further: by formally declaring that the entire world (including the U.S.) is a battlefield and the war will essentially go on forever.

  133. 133
    Snowball says:

    @NR:

    That’s not how they do it. Per wikipedia:

    Theoretically, a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate is 67 out of 100 senators, while a two-thirds supermajority in the House is 290 out of 435 representatives. However, since few votes take place with every seat in the House filled and representative participating, it does not often require 67 senators or 290 representatives to achieve this supermajority.

    So, in this case, they take 283/419 = 67%

  134. 134
    NR says:

    @Snowball:

    The bill passed by two thirds in both houses.

    Oh for fuck’s sake. The level of stupidity and ignorance in here is astonishing.

    For the eleventy billionth time, the bill did not pass with two-thirds in the House.

  135. 135
    different-church-lady says:

    Point of order: who knows (and when I say knows, I mean actually knows) whether 2/3rds majority vote means 2/3rds of those voting, or 2/3rds of the entire body?

    Redacted: answer above.

  136. 136
    eemom says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Dude, half the people in this country couldn’t find their own ass if you stuck a push pin in it.

    ain’t that the truth.

    May I say, good DCL, your comments have really been a breath of fresh air on these increasingly fetid threads. Sparkling with good sense and wit.

  137. 137
    Snowball says:

    @NR:

    What is 283/419?

  138. 138
    Samara Morgan says:

    @John Cole: well….what would a veto actually accomplish?
    do the 4×4 payoff matrix.
    i could draw it up for you if i had the access.

  139. 139
    Chad says:

    @NR: Do you honestly believe that the House wouldn’t override Obama’s veto? If so please state why. If not why are we arguing a point that isn’t salient?

  140. 140
    LT says:

    @Danny:

    But that is what Shook and ABL are saying.

    My god.

  141. 141
    Allan says:

    @LT: You should probably send an email to John demanding that he curtail ABL’s posting privileges. Your campaign against her in the comments is clearly not getting through to him.

  142. 142
    Snowball says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Please see post 133. It is from
    wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....ted_States

  143. 143
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Corner Stone: GG is a libertarian. what do you not understand about that?

  144. 144
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Why is this discussion still revolving around what History’s Greatest Monster said about this bill and Obama, instead of, say, what HRW and the ACLU had to say about it and him? HGM even quotes both in his criticism. I’d like to hear more about why they’re wrong instead of the QED declarations that HGM is wrong because he always is and he’s an asshole also too.

  145. 145
  146. 146
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan:

    You should probably send an email to John demanding that he curtail ABL’s posting privileges. Your campaign against her in the comments is clearly not getting through to him.

    why not? you clearly tried that against me. As i recall, you said you would never post again unless Cole banned me.
    :)

  147. 147
    different-church-lady says:

    @Snowball: That makes it interesting. All well and good to observe that’s what the vote count was. But it leaves the question of what the vote could would be if Obama issued a veto, at which point you better believe everyone would be voting.

  148. 148
    carpeduum says:

    Fine honeypot of Wrong Again Cole apologists that ABL has collected here in the comments.

  149. 149
    Danny says:

    @John Cole:

    How about here:

    In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law

  150. 150
    MacKenna says:

    Shorter Obamabot: Don’t you guys get it? If Obama signs off, it’s all good!

    Can be applied to any and all egregious actions.

  151. 151
    carpeduum says:

    @Allan: I say we designate @LT as the “comment Nazi”.

  152. 152
    Corner Stone says:

    @fasteddie9318:

    I’d like to hear more about why they’re wrong

    They’re criticizing the decision to sign the NDAA.
    That’s all.

  153. 153
    LT says:

    @fasteddie9318:

    Why is this discussion still revolving around what History’s Greatest Monster said about this bill and Obama, instead of, say, what HRW and the ACLU had to say about it and him?

    Because that’s where ABL wants to steer this, and she’s an FPer on BJ.

  154. 154
    NR says:

    @Snowball: The veto override happens in a separate vote. They don’t just take the result of the last vote and go by that.

    With a veto override being a critically important vote, and this one in particular being a close vote, we would likely see all Representatives voting. Which means that they would need 290 votes for the override.

    So at the moment, nobody can say what would happen in an override vote. Which means the constant bleating of “It had a veto proof majority!” just isn’t true.

  155. 155
    carpeduum says:

    @MacKenna: Not just shorter but standard response from firebaggers to pretty much anything Obama does….”Obama sold us out….that’s it I’m not voting”

  156. 156
    eemom says:

    @John Cole:

    I’d have preferred Clinton took a stand.

    actually not, because when Clinton was president you were a republican.

  157. 157
  158. 158
    Allan says:

    Does anyone here believe that if Obama were to veto the bill and send it back to Congress, that they would struggle to attain 2/3 votes to override in both houses? I presume Congress would override by an even larger margin than before because SUPPORT THE TROOPS/gives me a cheap way to score points with the poutragers in my district/lets me demonstrate to my constituents that Obama is not the boss of me.

    Just curious how those of you who are interested in the legislative process see this course of action playing out.

  159. 159
    NR says:

    @Chad: Why should we automatically assume the House would override the veto? The bill passed with less than 290 votes.

  160. 160
    Hawes says:

    What happens if Obama vetoes the Defense Appropriations Bill? At what time in the last year have the GOP ever evinced a desire to actually govern rather than grandstand and try and leverage political advantage from fulfilling their duty to govern?

    Obama threatened a veto to get the detention on US soil of US citizens out of the bill. He got that. He did not get the part about detention of US citizens overseas out.

    But the idea that he should then veto the bill seems to disregard what will happen after. Defense contractors will not get paid. People will get laid off. If I’m not correct, the troops don’t get paid.

    Since we live with the military-industrial state, we have to acknowledge that military spending is about the only Keynesian spending left.

    Vetoing this bill means economic hardship for hundreds of thousands of people. Not vetoing it means that we can now imprison Americans overseas who are fighting us an opposed to killing them with a predator strike.

    Color me shocked. Once again, Obama is offered a shit sandwich, and manages to get at least a glass of milk to wash it down with. And all some can say is that Obama sure loves shit sandwichs.

  161. 161
    NR says:

    @Allan:

    Does anyone here believe that if Obama were to veto the bill and send it back to Congress, that they would struggle to attain 2/3 votes to override in both houses?

    I don’t know what would happen. But I do know the situation isn’t as simple as “The bill passed with a veto proof majority, herp derp!” that people have been claiming here over and over and over and over again.

  162. 162
    Rob says:

    “[T]here are many folks who still think that this bill permits the government to snatch them from their homes on U.S. soil, when it categorically does not.”

    Right. Unless the government says you’re part of Al Qaeda and helped plan attacks, etc. Then, the bill says, the government certainly can snatch you from your home on U.S. soil.

  163. 163
    Chad says:

    @MacKenna: shorter firebagger, there’s only one consequential branch of government, everything can be fixed if he just used the bully pulpit.

  164. 164
    LT says:

    @Allan: That is obviously your level, Allan. And that i think ABL doing shit like this isn’t worthy of FP here. And I said that. And say it. You disagree? Say it.

  165. 165
    different-church-lady says:

    @eemom: Call an ambulance, we’ve got a third degree BURN here.

  166. 166
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Hey there, Sunshine! That’s right, I did, and was pilloried from stem to stern here because even though I am one of many who found your drivel repellent, I was the only one with the courage to say I complained to John here in the comments, and thus became the poster boy.

    It’s called irony, but I’m accustomed to your difficulty in perceiving tone in written communications by now.

    Also, you seem to have mellowed a tad in your latest incarnation. You’re more annoying than disgusting these days, and I’m grateful for that.

  167. 167
    Zandar says:

    @NR: You’re assuming all members of the House would vote.

    Which is just as “incorrect” an assumption as they wouldn’t be able to get a 2/3rds majority, according to your logic.

    As it stands, both votes were veto-proof.

  168. 168
    agrippa says:

    @MacKenna: Shorter Obamabot: Don’t you guys get it? If Obama signs off, it’s all good!

    Can be applied to any and all egregious actions.

    ignominious fail

  169. 169
    Samara Morgan says:

    @carpeduum:

    I say we designate @LT as the “comment Nazi”.

    nah, hes just the New Comment Nazi. They come and go pretty quickly around here.

  170. 170
    Chad says:

    @NR: I’m not automatically assuming that. I look at the make-up of the House. I look at the weak kneed Democrats who populate it. I take into account that Senators will be lobbying House Members to override the veto in order to make themselves look better politically. I think about the anemic support Obama has gotten from allies. I add all that together and reach my conclusion

  171. 171
    Chad says:

    @NR: I’m not automatically assuming that. I look at the make-up of the House. I look at the weak kneed Democrats who populate it. I take into account that Senators will be lobbying House Members to override the veto in order to make themselves look better politically. I think about the anemic support Obama has gotten from allies. I add all that together and reach my conclusion

  172. 172
    LT says:

    @Danny: And by your level of genius, the fact that he used the dreaded “detention bill” name for it – after he said at the very beginning of the post that it was part of the

    oh fuck it and fuck you. You know you’re wrong and desperate, so go play with your goat’s balls.

  173. 173
    agrippa says:

    @Hawes:

    The NDAA was not going to be vetoed.
    Full stop

  174. 174
  175. 175
    carpeduum says:

    @eemom:

    @John Cole:

    I’d have preferred Clinton took a stand.
    actually not, because when Clinton was president you were a republican were and probably still are a republican.

    Fixed

  176. 176
    Allan says:

    @NR: Well, I’m giving you the opportunity to discuss what might actually happen instead of whining that others are getting it wrong, but I see you aren’t really interested in anything else.

  177. 177
    srv says:

    Topic for next internecine Juicer war, follow the mainstream: Generation X thinks Millinealist Occupiers are Slackers.

    But for others, the Occupy movement is at best a showy rehash of similar recessionist angst they weathered with self-sufficiency and little more public display of disaffection than grunge rock and goatees — and at worst a reflection of a younger generation with a whiny, overweening idea of its own importance.
    __
    “Generation X is tired of your sense of entitlement. Generation X also graduated during a recession … and actually had to pay for its own music,” declared Mat Honan, 39, a San Francisco-based writer for the technology blog Gizmodo.

  178. 178
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: i can be disgusting. :)
    given that we are absolutely not going to disinvest in COIN or even admit that it was a collossal failcake, when are we going to start COINing Our Very Own Local Insurgencies like OWS?

  179. 179
    Danny says:

    The big problem here – it seems to me – is that ~2/3s of our representatives in both chambers of congress voted for this bill. This is US political mainstream. Then the President made the bill less bad – by threatening to veto it.

    The big problem here is NOT that the president didnt successfully stop congress from producing bad legislation. The problem is that 65%+ of our representatives voted for bad legislation. Anyone who tries to obfuscate that simple fact – like e.g. Glenn Greenwald – is no more than an useful idiot.

  180. 180
    Pillsy says:

    So the timeline is roughly this, as I understand it:

    The original NDAA contains a number of provisions that would expand the scope of indefinite military detention where it is now, and would place people in the US (not citizens, but resident aliens) in additional jeopardy of detention, and would also do a lot to tie the hands of law enforcement in terrorism cases, dictating the involvement of the military.
    The White House says this is unacceptable, and threatens a veto.
    The NDAA is amended in such a way as to not actually affect the status quo with regards to indefinite detention. It may further entrench the status quo (though it’s not precisely clear to me how it does so).
    Obama withdraws his veto threat. It passes both chambers of Congress with more than 2/3 majorities.

    It looks like Obama came into this threatening a veto if he didn’t get what he wanted (and what progressives wanted as well), got about half of what he was demanding, and decided that was better than the alternative of not having the NDAA pass, even if he actually could have vetoed it, which seems unlikely given the pitiful number of nays.

    I dunno. I think Obama played a really lousy hand about as well as could be expected. Having the NDAA fail would be a major problem, and having his veto overridden doesn’t seem like it would actually help anything in any identifiable way. We’re actually in a situation where we have people in indefinite detention right fucking now, which is terrible, but makes the language in the NDAA the opposite of a change.

  181. 181
    Hawes says:

    @Rob: The government cannot get rid of habeus corpus on US soil when civilian courts are open and functioning – ex parte Milligan. There was language in the original rider that would have allowed that.

    Obama – and probably others – said that this was blatantly unconstitutional. It was changed to extend to citizens overseas. Nor, I believe does it mandate that they be detained, but rather gives the President the option of detaining them.

    I guess if the next Khalid Sheik Mohammed turns out to be from Wichita, that might make sense.

    But again, we just killed a US citizen overseas. How is this really a change?

  182. 182
    eemom says:

    @Allan:

    You’re more annoying than disgusting these days, and I’m grateful for that.

    heh. Baby steps, right?

    And I’m kind of glad toko-loko is here and dragging in the “libertarian” sideshow — makes the whole clusterfuck more COMPLETE, somehow.

  183. 183
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: its your same note, Hall Monitor Allan.
    Dont you have to recuse yourself since im STILL HERE?

    hahahahaha

  184. 184
    Snowball says:

    @NR:

    The vote already passed with a two thirds vote as I showed you. Furthermore, in that vote, 9 Republicans did not vote while only 7 Democrats didn’t vote. You do the math as to what will happen.

    And with that, I’m out of here. It is just pointless…

  185. 185
    Danny says:

    @LT:

    Nope, this is a different (and earlier) post, and he clearly wrote that with deceptive language to imply that there’s a “detention bill” that Obama won’t veto.

    Now you tell me: is the Bush admin absolved from misleading the public if they spoke the truth at least once?

  186. 186

    The bill did NOT pass the House with a veto-proof supermajority:

    http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/932

    Ayes: 283 (Democrat: 93; Republican: 190)
    Nays: 136 (Democrat: 93; Republican: 43)
    Abstained: 14 (Democrat: 6; Republican: 8)
    Required percentage of ‘Aye’ votes: 1/2 (50%)
    Percentage of ‘aye’ votes: 65%

    That’s not to say a veto-proof majority couldn’t be achieved the second time around, but it’s not unfair to point out that the White House signaled that Obama would not veto the bill BEFORE the House vote.

  187. 187
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: In the past 24 hours I have seen Corner Stone and LT issue complaints that ABL’s posts should be deleted and/or she should be removed from the roster of FPers, and I’m the hall monitor? Whatever floats your boat, you head-full-of-spirochetes.

  188. 188
    Hawes says:

    Why did so many people vote for the NDAA?

    Have you seen how many defense jobs are created by this bill? All the Connecticut reps (all Dems, except Lieberman) are touting the jobs at Pratt Whitney and Electric Boat.

    The NDAA is the last bastion of Keynesian stimulus. It was not going to be vetoed to prevent the President from imprisoning Americans captured overseas, as opposed to killing them.

  189. 189
    different-church-lady says:

    @Pillsy: ‘Eff man, how we gonna have screeching, endless arguments about crap we’re barely half informed about if you’re gonna pull shit like this?

  190. 190
    Dale says:

    I have read through many of these replies and only saw mention once that the NDAA did not pass the house in a veto proof jacket. I also see many people saying that they did not call their Reps. While that may be the case it is also the case that the Media never discussed the bill until there was outrage. Many of us did call tweet email both the Reps and Sen of their state. I have called the WH 3 times requesting a Veto. I will call more on Monday.

    We cant agree that the words are bad and since the words are bad and we do not have a crystal ball to see into the future of who might have power that this is a huge risk? There are people saying its ok if it gets pass because legislation will be introduced later to get rid of it. Really we should gamble with wording that is so vague it could put innocent people in prison?

    President Obama should veto the bill. It will help stablize him for 2012 it will show that he has not backed down. It will prove to people that he listens to us. Also food for thought what if he did veto it? Who would look like the villian if the GOP forced a vote for a 2/3 in both House and Senate? I think it would show the GOP choking on their own poison pill.

  191. 191
    stinkfoot says:

    One thing I learn from these discussions is that we should never, ever expect the president to stand on principle for anything we actually care about. Ever.

    John Cole has already made the point, but let’s underline it: The president threatened to veto the entire NDAA over provisions he felt violated certain principles of executive power to wage the WOT. Those provisions were removed. Now he will pass it. Now we are saying that he should veto the bill on provisions that violate other important principles (habeas corpus, etc.) – yes, knowing full well that it affects all of NDAA and that it risks override by Congress. If those were not problems when the president threatened veto before, it shouldn’t be a problem now.

    As for calling it the “indefinite detention bill” – this reminds me of another discussion I had not long ago with someone where I said that soliders enlist for a mix of noble and selfish reasons. He immediately jumped on me for using the word “selfish” and beat a chicken-hawk drum about their sacrifices. No matter how much I tried to say that I was talking about soldiers as human beings who have complex, individual motives, he wouldn’t let it go. So, eyeroll, I said, “How about if I said that soldiers have bills to pay, families to support, and the military offers them financial incentives that are hard to resist?” He conceded that much. Oy.

    So how about if we just say that there are provisions in the NDAA that allow indefinite detention, flout habeus corpus, and are worded vaguely enough to cause concern for everyone, whether they are U.S. citizens or not?

  192. 192
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Great, yet another hit-and-run grenade thrown by resident Cult-leader ABL, who, as usual holds others to higher standards than she clearly holds herself. Kind of like how she holds GOP POTUS to higher standards than the current Dear Leader. I asked her a simple question the othe day on twitter: in your opinion, do you hold all POTUS to the same set of critical standards? She ignored me, then had me blocked. I got my answer.

    This site would be greatly improved if she was given the boot.

  193. 193
    b-town says:

    In order to further derail the topic at hand (whatever the fuck it happens to be) I will point out that exactly 93 dems in the house approved the bill while 93 opposed it (and 6 didn’t vote). This suggests that Pelosi (and hence the dem leadership, i.e including Obama) had plenty of control over her own caucus.

  194. 194
    John Cole says:

    @Danny: You had to truncate the paragraph JUST so you could call Glenn a liar. Here is the full paragraph:

    In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

    Some of you people are seriously pathological.

  195. 195
    LT says:

    @Danny:

    You are right that it was a different post. I wa wrong about that.

    But here is the full paragraph your line is from:

    In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

    Are you honestly telling me that you think Greenwald was trying to mislead his readers about the fact that the detention bill was part of the NDAA with THAT paragraph?

  196. 196
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: tch tch, the other guys are worse is a failmeme the last time i checked.
    So im still here commenting– doesnt that mean you have to do the honorable and fuck off?

    im alive!

  197. 197
    NR says:

    @Chad: So you’re saying that the bill’s proponents would be able to swing votes to their side, but Obama wouldn’t be able to swing votes to his side. That’s an awfully big assumption.

  198. 198
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @John Cole:

    John, there you go again, posting clear facts against a wall of willful ignorance. When will you learn?

  199. 199
    LT says:

    @Allan:

    In the past 24 hours I have seen Corner Stone and LT issue complaints that ABL’s posts should be deleted

    CS, have you done that? I sure the fuck haven’t.

    And Allan, the hall Monitor comments, I’m pretty sure, are in regards to your status as an FPer at ABL’s blog.

  200. 200
    Allan says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: More Hall-Monitoring by people with ABL Derangement Syndrome.

    PS, “had you” blocked on Twitter? Umm, everyone on Twitter has the power to block whomever they choose, which prevents them from seeing your tweets, not you from sending them. How do you plan to drive in that last spike when you nail yourself to that cross?

  201. 201
    NR says:

    @Allan:

    Well, I’m giving you the opportunity to discuss what might actually happen instead of whining that others are getting it wrong,

    What might actually happen is that Obama’s veto would be upheld.

    What also might actually happen is that Obama’s veto would be overriden.

    I don’t know which outcome would actually occur. But given that the bill passed the House with less than 290 votes, it’s just dishonest to claim that an override is a forgeone conclusion.

  202. 202
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Guys, EVEN IF HIS VETO COULD HAVE BEEN OVERIDDEN, WHY COULDN’T HE HAVE TAKEN A STAND AGAINST THESE DRACONIAN MEASURES? Fuck. What harm would that have caused? Force others to take ownership and explain their support. This mindless defense of Obama is tiresome. MINDLESS.

  203. 203
    NR says:

    @Zandar:

    You’re assuming all members of the House would vote.

    Which is a perfectly reasonable assumption on such a close and important vote.

  204. 204
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: I allow for the possibility that human beings learn, grow and change through experience. I’ve concluded that your prattlings aren’t annoying enough to keep me away, sorry to disappoint you.

  205. 205
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @stinkfoot:

    Nuance. It’s lost on the wingtard.

  206. 206
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan: Where?

  207. 207
    Danny says:

    @John Cole:

    You had to truncate the paragraph JUST so you could call Glenn a liar.

    I don’t think I called him a liar. I think I said that “he clearly wrote that with deceptive language to imply that there’s a “detention bill” that Obama won’t veto.” And he did:

    In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill

    There is no such bill to veto.

    As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

    Clearly proving that what GG refers to as “the Levin/McCain bill” – and which GG claims Obama won’t veto – is not the same thing as the NDAA.

    Thus clearly misleading. Come at me, John.

  208. 208
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Also, I’m simply pointing out your hypocrisy in choosing when and whether to respond to other commenters’ reflexive calls for censoring or silencing the opposition. It’s obvious to everyone else, and I thought perhaps the spirochetes devouring your gray matter might hear me. Live and learn!

  209. 209
    boss bitch says:

    Hilarious. People calling others Obots while claiming that Greenwald should never be questioned and is he’s always right. His motives are always good and righteous. Yeah, ok.

  210. 210
    Hawes says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Because there are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line with this bill and the GOP would drag this out until February so they could make a political point on the backs of people working in defense industries, not to mention troop payrolls.

  211. 211
    Corner Stone says:

    @NR: More importantly, 435 potential votes actually exist. To say they won’t vote in a future situation is worse than manipulative lying.
    Zander’s still looking over his shoulder for the DRONES.

  212. 212
    Hawes says:

    @NR: So, you’re assuming that a Rep who ducked the easier vote would show up for the much harder one?

  213. 213
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Danny:

    Clearly proving that what GG refers to as “the Levin/McCain bill” – and which GG claims Obama won’t veto – is not the same thing as the NDAA.

    Just out of curiosity, are you McMegan’s Sith apprentice?

  214. 214
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: Somewhere in these clusterfucks, you whined to the effect that JC lacked the courage or something to delete ABL’s posts so everyone here has to suffer them.

  215. 215
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Danny:

    Maybe YOU were dumb enough to be fooled by GG’s wording there, but I’d say anyone north of a grade-school education could see he was not hiding the fact that the provision he was referring to was part of the NDAA.

    Seriously, are you people insane?

  216. 216
    Hawes says:

    @Corner Stone: Technically no. There’s at least one vacant seat at the moment. There might be two. And one of those vacant seats is that scumbag Dem from the Northwest (Oregon I think).

  217. 217
    NR says:

    @Hawes: Why automatically assume they were “ducking” the earlier vote? It’s entirely possible that they just didn’t show up because they knew that the margin was going to be lopsided.

    When there are really close votes in Congress, all Representatives (or Senators) usually vote. This is standard practice.

  218. 218
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: and im simply pointing out your hypocrisy in saying you cant comment here if im here, and in your hypocrisy in calling out others for the EXACT SAME THINGS you did.
    c’mon Hall Monitor Allan.
    fall on your sword.
    ;)

  219. 219
    Stranger Reader says:

    ABL seems constitutionally incapable of changing her mind or admitting she’s ever wrong. Makes for tedious reading, particularly when she’s still spinning her wheels after practically the whole front page is wallpapered with different iterations of the same topic.

  220. 220
    LT says:

    @Danny:

    Come at me, John.

    I was not at all aware of that internet tradition…

  221. 221
    Hawes says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: He was saying it was a bill, when I don’t believe it was a bill, but rather an amendment. But he was also saying that it was in the NDAA. So it was both.

  222. 222
    Danny says:

    @LT:

    Short answer: yes. See my response to JC.

  223. 223
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Corner Stone: me too CS. Given that we are not going to give up on COIN funding or even admit that it was a colossal failcake, how long before we start droning our own insurgencies?

  224. 224
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Lost in your crowing that you’re still here is the fact that John Cole himself BANNED the ID under which you formerly commented. Please address your complaints to the actual hall monitor, the owner of this blog.

  225. 225
    Trurl says:

    ABL seems constitutionally incapable of changing her mind or admitting she’s ever wrong

    It’s tragically common among party hacks.

  226. 226
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Hawes:

    This is how cult-worship manifests itself. Obama threatens a veto. Cultists support his threat. Then he doesn’t veto. Cultists act like it was suddenly a Sophie’s Choice and he did it to avoid so much suffering. Suddenly a veto would have been BAD. But they supported the original veto threat, right? Um, er, uh… I mean, seriously, when does the reality hit you people?

  227. 227
  228. 228
    Hawes says:

    @NR: Paul and Bachmann are out on the campaign trail. There is at least one vacancy that I know of. And yes, people duck votes. And since the vote is by those who actually vote – not total potential members – there’s no guarantees.

    I believe someone said there were 9 GOP and 7 DEM non-votes. One of those non votes is Wu, who resigned in disgrace. So it’s 9 to 6. Let’s assume Paul was a non-vote and would vote against it.

    Show me who didn’t vote, and I’ll believe that it might be overridden. But your positing a hypothetical.

  229. 229
  230. 230
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan: Ah, no link to me saying she should have her posts deleted then?
    According to your Dear Leader, semantics trump all. And therefore I will continue to say John Cole doesn’t have the sack to take down a bullshit post by ABL. He tried it once and got blink checked. Not that her posts should be deleted.
    Remember! Language matters!

  231. 231
    kyle says:

    “My interest in politics, the media, and the manner in which narratives are created and disseminated throughout Blogistan, the Twittersphere, and ultimately to the mainstream media is seemingly gauche to some.”

    Huffy!

  232. 232
    Pillsy says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Well, we can always endlessly parse what Glenn Greenwald said about the bill, then we can argue over whether ABL accurately represented him, and we can wrap it up by psychoanallyzing each other and claiming that this ridiculous fucking food fight proves everything everybody needs to know about firebaggers and/or Obots.

  233. 233
    Allan says:

    @NR: So your contribution to the “what might happen” conversation is “I have no idea”, and your real interest is in criticizing others’ comments. Thanks for clarifying.

  234. 234
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan:

    The Operative: You know, in certain ‘older’ civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords.

  235. 235
    Danny says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    Fuck you buddy :)

  236. 236
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: I am not sufficiently interested in your comments to search them out, but thanks for reiterating the same point here on this thread. It was really helpful of you to repeat your masturbatory fantasies of silencing people with whom you disagree, so that everyone could read it without clicking through.

  237. 237
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: And yet you’re still alive. Coward.

  238. 238
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Corner Stone: Language does matter. The specific wording of laws matters. The language used by courts when interpreting laws matters. Sneer if you want, but it remains true. That being said, this whole discussion has become insane. The US shit the bed on civil liberties following 9/11, and it appears that we, as a country, aren’t ready to shower and change the sheets yet.

  239. 239
    Hawes says:

    OK, found those not voting:

    Bachmann, Coble, Diaz-Balart, La Tourette, Myrick, Paul, Pitts and Young (FL) of the GOP. Only Paul would vote against it from my reading of that list.

    Dems:

    Filner, Giffords, Gutierrez, Johnson, Lynch, Loretta Sanchez

    Who are the Blue Dogs? Giffords and Sanchez.

    I don’t see the numbers there.

  240. 240
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Someone please explain why Obama couldn’t have vetoed this bill regardless? But please spare me the idea that it would have resulted in a lack of funding and people losing jobs etc, when you all supported his effing original veto threat. And also spare me the “his veto would have been overridden” nonsense. So what? Even if it was overridden, he would have at least taken a principled stand. Anyone with a cogent defense? Anyone?

  241. 241
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: c’mon, fall on your sword like a man of honor.
    /taps foot impatiently

  242. 242
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan:

    It was really helpful of you to repeat your masturbatory fantasies of silencing people with whom you disagree, so that everyone could read it without clicking through.

    You are hilarious Hall Monitor. You live and breathe with the desperation people will come comment on ACLC so you can have the stroke over them. It’s fucking palpable!
    There is nothing in your miserable excuse that you would like better than to ban someone you disagree with, or perhaps better! Expose them!

  243. 243
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: hahaha! im no coward.
    ive been banned at least six times since your hollow promise.
    c’mon, fall on your sword, Hall Monitor Allan.

    live by the sword, die by the sword.

  244. 244
    Corner Stone says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Of course it matters clownshoe. But to say when someone refers to the indefinite detention bill doesn’t grasp it’s part of a larger NDAA is the height of clowning.

  245. 245
    Corner Stone says:

    Clowns gotta be clowning.

  246. 246
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Because he is okay with the language in the current bill. Obama isn’t a hero here. There is no hero here. On the other hand, these provision don’t really change the current state of the law, so that’s fun too.

  247. 247
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: because vetoing would have been profitless kabuki.
    O only engages in kabuki for gain.

  248. 248
    Hawes says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: I’m not a cultist. I’m a realist. I don’t believe in the magical bully pulpit and I believe that principles are easier to commit to when your decisions have no real world implications. I know that Obama was the new Hitler because the Senate voted 99-0 to keep Gitmo open, and Obama didn’t use the bully pulpit. I also know he’s consistently avoided fights to keep the government operating, despite the presence of a sizable lunatic fringe in the Congress that wants to shut it down.

    If you live and die by your principles that can make you admirable (depending on what those principles are). I admire Greenwald for being so true to his principles.

    But Greenwald could no more govern than could any activist. He’s doing a good job forcing his ideas into the discussion, but ultimately, he doesn’t have to make a decision that effects a bunch of other things besides that one, shining principle.

  249. 249
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: You appear to buy into some sort of deranged value system that encourages people to commit suicide if they make a mistake, which apparently includes changing your mind about something. That is not my value system.

    I’m more of a Walt Whitman guy. Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes.

  250. 250
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Corner Stone: Fuck you, I have small feet.

  251. 251
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: Since you know me so well, Corner Stone, how many fingers am I holding up right now?

  252. 252
    Corner Stone says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: The better to make the floppy clownshoes more comical.

  253. 253
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    So perhaps ABL would find it more productive to CRITICIZE the Dear Leader for his failure of leadership here instead of focusing on flame-wars against those who ARE pointing out this failure. Just a thought. But that would require ABL to be psychologically capable of criticizing Obama, so…

  254. 254
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan: On your non-fapping hand? 1

  255. 255
    Trurl says:

    I’m actually all in favor of letting ABL impose her… distinctive perspective on the blog to a greater extent than she does already.

    The embarrassment she’s causing John has done more to shake him out of his apologetic stupor than anything in a long time.

  256. 256
    Hawes says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    But please spare me the idea that it would have resulted in a lack of funding and people losing jobs etc, when you all supported his effing original veto threat. And also spare me the “his veto would have been overridden” nonsense. So what? Even if it was overridden, he would have at least taken a principled stand. Anyone with a cogent defense?

    Two things. If you take away all the reasons for why he signed the bill (jobs, payroll, keeping the government functioning), then yeah, why not! If it was that simple, then sure, veto the thing.

    As for the veto threat, it was for detention inside the US that was in the original wording. That was unconstitutional, so he threatened a veto. They took it out and he agreed to sign what was left.

    Sausage making.

    Sorry it sullies you so.

  257. 257
    Pillsy says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    I just don’t see the cause for outrage over a decision not to take a futile and entirely symbolic stand. I also don’t think saying, “It’s less bad now, so the balance is shifted so that passing the bill is worse than not passing it,” is a particularly confusing position to take, even if you don’t actually agree with it.

  258. 258
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: Also, re this:

    You live and breathe with the desperation people will come comment on ACLC so you can have the stroke over them.

    I’m not familiar with the acronym ACLC. To what does that refer?

  259. 259
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan:

    I am not sufficiently interested in your comments to search them out

    Then why’d you mention me? And make a claim you can’t back up?

  260. 260
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Hawes:

    Your “realism” is a Get-Out-Of-Showing-Leadership card for anyone in power. And in this specific instance, he already threatened a veto! So, did he forget about the “real world implications” when he made that threat? Did you point out the horrors of that threat when he made it? Or did you support it?

  261. 261
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Pillsy: Who said the bill is better now, anyway?

  262. 262
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: euwwwwwww walt whitman.
    that explains a lot.
    did you know i cut my blogteeth on some conservative whankers eulogizing Sarah Palin with walt whitman verse?
    hahaah
    im not advocating meatspace suicide, retardo.
    i just want you to keep your promise to Cole like an honorable denizen of the blogverse.

    fall on your ego sword.

  263. 263
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Hawes:

    You still believe he threatened a veto for noble “constitutional” purposes????????? Good god.

  264. 264
    Hawes says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Also explained this. His veto threat was over detaining legal immigrants in the US. Ex parte Milligan. Can’t do that. Threatens veto. Language taken out. Still troubling, but not a huge change in policy really.

    Passes the bill with the new language.

    Again, sausage making.

    You know, we condemn the GOP and rightly so for whining and stamping and holding their breath when they don’t get every single damned thing they want.

    How is this different? He got the worst parts taken out. It’s still bad, but it’s almost indistinguishable from current policy.

  265. 265
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: It’s OK, you already repeated yourself on this thread. You clearly seethe with indignation that ABL has posting privileges on this blog, and burn with hope that JC will bend to the will of your endless complaints and delete her posts and/or revoke her FPer status. Just because you want someone else to carry out the silencing doesn’t mean you aren’t obsessed with seeing her silenced.

  266. 266
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: dude. they changed the wording. threat of veto removed.

  267. 267
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Obama. Implicitly.

  268. 268
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: have you changed your mind about meh?
    LOLOLLLLLOLOL! eleventy!

  269. 269

    […] Ten minutes later, predator drone strikes wiped out the ACLU offices in Washington and New York.[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Snowe and Collins mock your civil rights while…/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/SMCandOJS.jpg/300px-SMCandOJS.jpg" alt="Maine's two U.S. Senators, Susan […]

  270. 270
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    Golly, they changed the wording? I guess that wraps it up! Do you even know what Obama’s gripe with the wording was? Do you even care? He wasn’t taking some noble stand, he was fighting for executive power. Wake up.

  271. 271
    IM says:

    @b-town:

    In order to further derail the topic at hand (whatever the fuck it happens to be) I will point out that exactly 93 dems in the house approved the bill while 93 opposed it (and 6 didn’t vote). This suggests that Pelosi (and hence the dem leadership, i.e including Obama) had plenty of control over her own caucus.

    And why exactly does this suggests that?

  272. 272
    Pillsy says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    It got rid of mandatory military detention for al Qaeda suspects captured on US soil, and it added protections for resident aliens that were previously absent. That makes it an improvement over the previous bill, which actually expanded the scope of military detention, and as far as I can tell doesn’t actually shift the status quo at all. It’s not good because the status quo is not good, but it’s not as bad as the previous version of the bill, which was actually worse than the status quo.

  273. 273
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Hmm, let’s see if I can unpack that.

    Guilt by association: because I quote Whitman I agree with some dumbfuck about the odious Sarah Palin? Fail.

    There are rules governing how people are supposed to behave on the internet and I’m not following them. Fail.

    Also, some people find variations on the term “retarded” offensive. I’ve learned to avoid using the epithet “Paultard” for that reason, and generally go with Paulbot, Paul cultist, or Paulite. I presume you’re uninterested in whether people find your writing ableist, since we’ve already established that you’re a gleeful racist. But I’m going to chalk that up as yet another Fail.

    I hope you have a sword handy.

  274. 274
    Hawes says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Wow, the extra question marks really changed my mind.

    Again, Supreme Court precedent says that when US civilian courts are open, they must be used. The early language in the bill was contrary to that.

    The current language… well, let me ask, where in the Constitution does it talk about the rights of people overseas? It doesn’t really. All Hamdan said was that the President must have Congressional authorization to set up military tribunals, not that military tribunals were in all cases unconstitutional.

    The courts also had an opportunity to interfere in the death warrant put out on al-Awlaki. They deferred.

    So, yes, I think the administration said that they would veto any bill that gave the president the right to detain people captured in the US. Since that is not the current wording, they agreed to sign it.

    But if you use more question marks, I may have to change my mind.

  275. 275
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Pillsy:

    Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer:

    This morning I wrote that by making the mandatory military detention provisions mandatory in name only, the Senate had offered the administration an opportunity to see how seriously it takes its own rhetoric on civil liberties. The administration had said that the military detention provisions of an earlier version of the NDAA were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

    The revised NDAA is still inconsistent with that fundamental American principle. But the administration has decided that fundamental American principles aren’t actually worth vetoing the bill over.

  276. 276
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan: Your budding obsession with me aside, you can’t back any of that up with actual comments.
    Maybe you should go make an incisively witty post about it at ACLC? I’m sure there are 5 or maybe even 8 people who’d atta boy you.

  277. 277
    fasteddie9318 says:

    LOUD NOISES!

  278. 278
    IM says:

    @Hawes:

    How is this different? He got the worst parts taken out. It’s still bad, but it’s almost indistinguishable from current policy.

    It is probably pointless to try in this atmosphere, but I think the new rules do expand current policy. By including:

    a) associated groups and

    b) hostilities against coalition partners

    The status quo can just be used on gruops or persons somehow involved in 9/11. Now it is suficient to be somehow associated with Al Quaida or the Taliban and to be engaged in hostilities against a coalition partner. I still think that is much looser language.

  279. 279
    AA+ Bonds says:

    The politics of the day is less important than the fact that our civil liberties are being infringed—at least that is what I’m told.

    Jesus, this is beyond parody

  280. 280
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    I used to enjoy reading GG during the Bush years but even then I thought that he was being unnecessarily over the top on much of his stuff. Since it about issues that I agreed with I cut him some slack. When Obama came into office, all GG did was switch Presidential names in his writing. The ‘style’ was still the same.

    GG thrives on people looking for confirmation of their bias. I know, I was one of them until I figured him out. He may be right about something in some way but he throws everything at whatever he writes, even the proverbial kitchen sink, which IMO lessens his original message. That’s why I have no problem dismissing starry-eyed GG followers so easily.

    I too was once one of those starry-eyed followers but then I wiped the stars from my eyes.

    Keep on keeping on ABL, I enjoy reading everything you write.

  281. 281
    Hawes says:

    @IM: Yeah, I don’t get that. Half the caucus voted for the bill. Two of the six that didn’t vote at all were Blue Dogs.

    Pelosi usually lets her caucus vote according to their political needs unless the vote is absolutely necessary. Maybe she could whip a few votes the other way. Then again 43 Republicans voted against it. Maybe a few vote for it just to embarrass Obama.

  282. 282
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @IM: Interesting. Arguable, though, since the Taliban and AQ are basically the groups one would characterize as being involved with 9/11. I certainly would not say it is much looser.

  283. 283
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Stating the obvious… if GWB was the one signing this bill, the same clowns falling over themselves to justify Obama would be joining hands with GG in blasting his administration. We all know this.

  284. 284
    Hawes says:

    @IM: OK, I’ll grant that. It’s a little worse because the language has broadened. I imagine that’s because the organization of Al Qaeda has become pretty diffuse.

    Again, I’d love for them to take out Al Zawahiri so Obama can get up and say that the war on Al Qaeda is over, that there are still terrorists out there against whom we must be vigilant, but all the various powers granted the President in the War on Terra are no longer necessary.

    That would be a fun day. Can you imagine Pam Geller’s blog if that happened?

  285. 285
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: /sigh.
    you used Whitman to validate your about face– the conservitards used whitman to validate Palin. samesame.
    im not a racist unless christian and stupid are races now. we have established that beyond the shadow of a doubt.
    Bigot, sure.
    :)
    i dont need to fall on my ego sword…i haven’t FAILED. you are critting others for doing the exact same thing you did.
    Being a Hall Monitor.

    i can use retardo. i play wow. its vernacular.

    thats what she said.

  286. 286
    NR says:

    @Hawes: This assumes that Obama wouldn’t be able to swing Democratic votes to his side.

    Yes, the other side can swing votes, too. But because of the two-thirds requirement, Obama would have the easier task. He would only have to swing one vote for every two that the other side had to swing.

    Again, I am not saying unequivocally that the veto would be upheld. I am saying that it’s not inevitable that it would be overriden.

  287. 287
    AA+ Bonds says:

    Nonetheless, as is my right, I will continue to focus on what interests me, no matter how unimportant it may seem to some—and that is this: the language we use to describe and discuss important prevailing issues.

    When you write something like this, you’ve already lost the case. You’re a trained attorney, right? This is the worst deflect I’ve ever seen. No judge in their right mind, and few in other states, would travel down this road with you.

    The issue is the bill.

  288. 288
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Samara Morgan: To follow your logic, if Allan quotes Assange on something we must equate him with you? That doesn’t seem fair to either of you.

  289. 289
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: So you’d like me to leave this comment thread and go post elsewhere? No thanks, I’ll stick around here and comment as I choose, until I decide I’m bored and move on.

    The urge to drive away people who hold views opposing yours shows through in every comment you write. It’s as transparent as it is pathetic.

  290. 290
    Bruce S says:

    Annals of “Language Mattering”:

    Milt Shook in response to JCole: “Being just like Fox News undermines our cause; it certainly doesn’t enhance it.”

    Which is why Mr. Shook felt compelled to couch his concerns as “the lies of the professional Left.”

    No kidding! This pair – Shook and ABL – are fucking nuts.

  291. 291
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Some points:

    a) we all know Wikileaks has been targeted by the Obama administration and both sides of the aisle in Congress.

    b) the added language, which now includes “or associated groups engaging in hostilities against the U.S. etc,” has expanded beyond those responsible for 9/11

    c) Does Wikileaks now become legally part of the enemy list, where cooperating with them i.e. – giving them classified docs, puts you in danger of being a “covered person” in regard to these detainment provisions?

  292. 292
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Hawes: maybe after O gets elected to a second term he could do that.
    Naow? not so much.
    ;)

  293. 293
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: I’ll amend my earlier comment to state that you’re a gleeful bigot. Better?

  294. 294
    IM says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    My argument is more or less this. Take a islamist militia in Somalia. They are in some way associated with Al Quaida. They also are engaged in hostilities with the government (recognized by the west) and Ethiopia and Kenya.

    So coalition partner (+)

    and associated with Al Quadia (+)

    But you can’t use detention under the AUMF, because they obviously have nothing to do with 9/11, not even existing back then and only operating in eastern africa.

    I hope that is not to much of a construction; somewhat similar militias exist after all.

    Another idea is charity – Hamas – hostilities with Israel. But lets avoid that morass for the moment.

    And so the scope of the new rules is wider.

  295. 295
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Baud: If it required real ink, I don’t think there would be nearly as much outrage.

  296. 296
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: nope.
    i just said he was using whitman to validate his hypocrisy. like the conservatards used whitman to validate w/e whacky aspect of Palin (palinizism) they were promoting at the time.
    it would be great if any of you read Assange enough to quote him.
    i do not think that will happen.

  297. 297
    glasnost says:

    Going to ignore the food fight in the earlier comment section.

    Credit where it’s due, ABL. This is closer to an actual logical argument than a lot of what you write. It’s better. Good. Do more things like this, less things like what you usually do. More A game – carefully argued logic – less trash talk.

    Moving on. Here are the problems:

    Moreover, it is also crucial that we recognize that there are many folks who still think that this bill permits the government to snatch them from their homes on U.S. soil, when it categorically does not. Greenwald contributes to this ecosystem of misinformation.

    See, the problem is that I am one of these people. And you, personally, haven’t demonstrated that this is misinformation. I think you’re wrong. And if you are wrong, as I’m sure you’d admit, Greenwald is no longer a serial exaggerator. Instead, he’s right, and you’re actively obstructing clarity on a vital issue because of your beef with GG and your reflexive deference to the president.

    My understanding is that the Feinstein amendment was *defeated*, that this bill claims to not affect current law in anyway – in other words no one has an idea whether US citizens can or can not be detained, but the U.S. Department of Justice believes they can. For example, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld only establishes that we have a habeus corpus right – that we can challenge our detention without charges. It does not establish that we cannot be detained without charges. We are in a netherworld. And you’re nothing like an expert on this subject. Maybe you should stop speaking with the kind of certainty that implies that you are one. This is very complicated stuff.

    no one has an idea whether US citizens can or can not be detained, but the U.S. Department of Justice believes they can

    That is fucking scary. And it is Obama’s fault. He owns the U.S. DoJ. He is responsible for the arguments they make. And they are making insane, frightening arguments and doing insane, frightening things.

    I like Barack Obama and will vote for him again, but either he’s totally lost control of his executive branch or he actively prefers the outcomes he’s getting. The DoJ, across the civil liberties spectrum, is a scary, embarrassing nightmare and it’s happening on his watch.

    It makes this kind of nitpicking of the people fighting against that general trend pretty hard to put up with, especially on an issue where your optimistic interpretation of what’s actually going on is far from established as definitive truth.

  298. 298
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: you can call me an elitist intellectual snob too.
    again, fall on your ego sword (apolo) or stfu, Hall Monitor Allan.

  299. 299
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @IM: It could be argued that current law allows the same. I think that the government would, in fact, make that argument. Note to those who would freak out: I am not saying I agree with this argument or that I support such an interpretation.

  300. 300
    IM says:

    @Hawes:

    Exploding heads. But Obama will never dare that. And I can’t blame him, Al Quadia being so diffuse. if some splinter group resurfaces… Senator Lieberman would impeach him.

  301. 301
    Pillsy says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    The difference is that the President at least has the option to keep the military out of terrorism investigations on US soil, where he didn’t have that option before. This means that it does less damage to the principle of keeping the military out of domestic law enforcement, making it more acceptable to the Administration, which shifts the calculus on whether the costs of a veto outweigh the benefits. It also undoubtedly shifts some nays to yays, making a veto that much less likely to be effective. Finally, the added protections for resident non-citizens are actually a pretty big deal.

    I don’t see what you’re not understanding here.

  302. 302
    sfrefugee says:

    So, next year when the Budget Bill or the Defense Authorization Act includes a provision that mandates (as per Jonathan Swift) that “a young healthy child well nursed” is the preferred source of protein for school lunches, it’s really not about cannibalism – it’s just an unfortunate clause in a bill otherwise devoted to defense.

    Baloney.

    The freedom from imperial tyranny has been the central organizing fact of American and Commonwealth legal systems since the Magna Carta. This is not a step forward – or even a step in place. And it is importantly wrong.

    I don’t care what you call it – the detention provisions within the NDAA are a terrible attack on the whole reason to have a military.

  303. 303
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Anyone who believes the following, raise your hand:

    If President John McCain just signed this bill, ABL would still be taking the time to repeatedly take GG to task under the “Language Matters” banner had he written the exact same thing about President McCain.

    Just sayin’…

  304. 304
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: a more urgent question is does OWS? OWS is an American Insurgency.

  305. 305
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Samara Morgan: I have actually quoted him in papers I have written IRL. So fucking there.

    ETA: Fuck it, I’ll even give you a h/t for some of it.

  306. 306
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Please stop trying to bully me into silence. It’s not working and it’s boring everyone, including me.

  307. 307
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan:

    The urge to drive away people who hold views opposing yours shows through in every comment you write. It’s as transparent as it is pathetic.

    You’re an incredibly funny person, as well as being so conflicted.
    Which of us has ever written the blog host to state that “I can no longer comment here until [another poster] is removed” ?
    I have no authority here. You got the big bad Banshee on your side. You’re stablemates with her.
    I welcome opposing views, or else I would not be here.
    You clearly like to Hall Monitor your way through life.

  308. 308
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    ABL; doesn’t comment on her own thread.

    Fascinating…

  309. 309
    AA+ Bonds says:

    I don’t believe America will advance on these issues until we admit we need a truth & reconciliation process over the 2000 elections and the subsequent Bush years, or something severe happens to alter our political landscape. I’d prefer the former to the latter, because that second one rarely benefits the right people.

    But the former appears impossible. Who will indict? Who will convict? Instead we have approval of that decision, of that administration’s policies, and the continuance of them under pressure from executive agencies who will screech at any toys in their box that get taken away – screech to the Village, in this day and age.

  310. 310
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: nope, just fall on your ego sword and apolo for your hypocrisy.
    You cant demand LT or CS be censored…..it was counter productive for you to demand that i be censored, that is how you got your nic….Hall Monitor Allan.
    ;)

  311. 311
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    ABL is a coward, this much is clear.

  312. 312
    Samara Morgan says:

    @AA+ Bonds: history will reconcile us. we just need some perspective, as in distance, for the lenses to align.

  313. 313
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I welcome opposing views,

    It’s amazing there are those who don’t. The knife is dull until it loses metal to the stone.

  314. 314
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: I wrote to John Cole to complain about the derailing and annoying behavior of a commenter. John Cole ultimately decided, of his own accord, to ban that commenter. I came back.

    It’s kind of like threatening to veto a bill if it isn’t changed, then after it’s changed, signing it.

    Of course, Cole’s banning capabilities are limited by technology and can be subverted, and through no fault of his own, the offensive commenter has returned. But I appreciate his good-faith effort. So I choose to continue to honor his actions by participating in the comments here.

    And the fact that my presence irritates you is just a bonus.

  315. 315
    Corner Stone says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    ABL; doesn’t comment on her own thread.

    She set it up as an empty pot. Too scared to back her bullshit semantics argument up.
    It’s funny, and telling, that Cole has engaged in this discussion more than -EDK- ABL has.
    She’s a coward with a fragile ego. Needs a retreat to the Echo Chamber to continue.

  316. 316
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: wallah. im shocked into silence.
    ;)

  317. 317
    AA+ Bonds says:

    What happened between 2000-2008 was nothing less than a crisis of the American presidential system, one that has never yet been addressed or repaired, and eventually, we’ll admit that, perhaps in history books written at a safe physical and temporal distance, and here’s hoping we’re all alive (and allowed) to read them

  318. 318
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    I think the additional wording makes Wikileaks a prime target and a civilian Bradley Manning would be at risk of being detained without charges by the military. That should terrify everyone.

  319. 319
    IM says:

    I dod think there is a difference to current law. current law, even as interpreted yb the administration demands a association with 9/11. The new legal language demands a association with people associated with 9/11.

    That adds another degree of separation. And makes the net for detention wider.

  320. 320
    AA+ Bonds says:

    The comparison to attempts to recover from failed presidential systems in Latin America is perhaps the only apt one right now for the United States. Retention of seized powers from the period of failure does not bode well by history’s measure.

  321. 321
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: lol! Cole can IP ban me at anytime.
    Ive been banned by mixie, Anne Laurie and even DougJ. Kain and de Bore have WP marked my comments as spam so i couldn’t comment.
    Cole said to me himself he told you to fuck off.
    wanna see the mail? hahahaha!
    Isn’t that true?

    I didnt object to your comments on the Ron Paul thread….I object to your hypocrisy here vis a vis CS and LT.
    Once a Hall Monitor, always a Hall Monitor?

  322. 322
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: Why won’t ABL come down here in the comments so we can throw our feces directly in her face instead of lobbing them impotently in her general direction? Waaaaaah!

  323. 323
    Pillsy says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    Admitting we need to formally revisit the Bush years like that would, in and of itself, be a major shift in the American political landscape. Other than that, I think you’re dead on.

  324. 324
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Some people would get the hint.

  325. 325
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan: Probably because she’s a coward. And you’re valiantly failing to make some kind of dent in her cowardice.
    If she wasn’t such a coward with a fragile ego, why would she need such an inept stooge such as yourself to deflect?

  326. 326
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: im afraid for OWS after reading this.

  327. 327
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: PS Cole tells everyone to fuck off. I don’t hold it against him.

    What mattered to me was that he banned m_c. He’s a good egg underneath the bluster.

  328. 328
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: have you gotten the hint, Hall Monitor Allan?
    c’mon, fall on your ego sword and admit YOU WERE WRONG.

  329. 329
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Samara Morgan: If only. I did not say I quoted or cited him approvingly.

  330. 330
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: LOL!

    What mattered to me was that he banned m_c.

    hei, Cole, is this accurate?

    I complained to John about m_c, especially after her one-week suspension elapsed and she resumed derailing every thread and making it all about her, particularly in E.D.’s posts. He advised me to pie her, a solution which I rejected because 1) I won’t install special software on my computer to do the work of eliminating toxic derailers that the blog owner is shirking, and 2) pieing the offenders is not sufficient as the other comments will still mostly be about, or responses to, the offender, thus the threads are still hijacked.
    __
    So I told John I wouldn’t be back until he banned m_c, and left.
    __
    Yesterday, I became aware through friends that another front-pager was being bullied by people who were exercising their white male privilege by offensively renaming her and encouraging others to adopt said offensive renaming, and I was moved to email John about it.
    __
    In his response to me, he informed me that he had banned m_c, and I thanked him for that, but cautioned that the bullying was still out of hand, and as I noted above, it reflected negatively on him.
    __
    So today I learned that John had stepped up to his responsibility as blog owner and drawn clear, simple rules, and also made it clear, where it was not before, that his other front-pagers are likewise empowered to enforce them.
    __
    And so I returned, and thanked him for doing so.

    next is coming the mails lol!

  331. 331
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: Many of us who blog have to make choices about how much time to spend discussing and debating posts we’ve already written vs. generating new content.

    There are some people who inhabit the comments sections of blogs, Twitter, etc., who are determined to derail the blogger, to suck up his/her time and energy, with the intent of preventing him/her from creating more content. ABL makes the choice of whether, when and how much to participate in the comments threads at BJ, same as every other FPer.

    Ignoring you =/= fearing you.

    Me, I’ve got the time today to hang out here with you guys, so here I am. I’ve got a couple of posts for ABLC in draft mode but I don’t feel like working on them right now. And last I heard, ABL was planning to get her hair done today.

    When responding to your obsessive hatred becomes more important to ABL than maintaining her personal grooming, I’ll be the first one to counsel her to re-think her priorities.

  332. 332
    jc says:

    The NDAA is not an “Indefinite Detention” bill

    Right, it’s just a bill that authorizes indefinite detention,

  333. 333
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan:

    another front-pager was being bullied by people who were exercising their white male privilege by offensively renaming her and encouraging others to adopt said offensive renaming

    lol, was that ABL? Hall Monitor Allan, defender of the Front Pagers!

    well, im here naow. doesnt that mean you have to go away again?

  334. 334
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Cole doesn’t appear to read the comments to his blog religiously, so he may overlook your question. Perhaps you should email him.

  335. 335
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Your cognitive impairment is clearly more profound than I thought if you can copy and paste my words and still not comprehend them. See my response to CS above for a summary of why I’m still here in spite of your monomaniacal quest to bully me off the site.

  336. 336
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: im debating about publishing the mails. it could earn me another banning, because Cole believes in mail-privacy. for example, he wouldn’t let me publish Manzis and Derbyshires mails to me.
    :)
    im just not sure you’re worth it.
    im pretty sure you have dishonored both yourself and your patroness on this thread.

  337. 337
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: lol! im not the resident bully Hall Monitor Allan.
    look in the mirror.

  338. 338
    MacKenna says:

    Obamabots (who seem to have lost all ability to be objective) are asking citizens to keep their standards low – and to lower their standards for democracy – because “Republicans are infinitely worse”.

    Who are they kidding with this bullshit?

  339. 339
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan: She poops out a post then within the first 10 posts, if she deigns to comment at all, claims loudly and cowardly just how “outta here” she is.
    Anybody who put the Milt Shook link up with “An important read”, and then runs away to the Echo Chamber within the first 10 posts?
    Maybe her content production should be considered for what it is.
    This poop of a post is hilarious.

  340. 340
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: at least you read him.
    im grateful for crumbs.
    pathetic, ain’t it?
    ;)

  341. 341
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Yawn. Listen to the spirochetes in your head, don’t listen to them.

    But it’s really boring watching you wave your imaginary dick in other peoples’ faces and telling them to suck it.

    I’m told that this kind of pointless chest-thumping bravado is endemic in some internet sub-cultures, but I’m not seeing anyone clamoring for more of it from you. Mostly you’re being ignored, as always.

    So continue to derail and thread-jack, or not, or go eat the barrel of your father’s pistol. No one cares.

  342. 342
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: And yet here you are, commenting about it. She really knows how to jerk your chain, doesn’t she?

  343. 343
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: pardon, i dont have a dick. im just objecting to the stick up your ass.
    ABL can defend herself just fine.
    again, since im here naow, don’t you have to go?
    this blog would have a lot moar desu without Hall Monitors.
    ;)

  344. 344
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan: Mmmm, jerked chicken…
    Delish!

  345. 345
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @glasnost: What you’re concerned about, then, is the whole regime of new ways of handling suspected terrorists since 9/11 — from the Patriot Act to “unlawful combatants” to the AUMF, and the uses and misuses to which it has been put. There’s nothing wrong with that. But IMHO what’s wrong is to put a lot of weight on the provisions of _this_bill, which at worst codifies “indefinite detention” and a parallel justice system under military auspices — both of which have been being used already under authority that, the claim goes, extends either from the AUMF for Afghanistan _or_ from the Bushian “unitary executive” theory. This bill also specifically, willfully sidesteps the matter of whether those are legitimate sources for the authority to detain indefinitely.

    So IMHO the kinds of grievances about the bill (or the sections in questions) that are legitimate include (1) lending additional support to the idea of indefinite detention, (2) lending additional support to the idea that terrorism demands special treatment, (3) lending additional support to he idea that the executive branch trumps the other branches. You can arraign Obama for those if you want.

    But where it goes crazy is when people slip from those kinds of complaints to ones like “Obama is paving the way for declaring anyone an enemy of the state and disappearing him.” This bill doesn’t make that more likely than it was, and it doesn’t seem like grounds for calling out Obama. And I do think that Greenwald likes to evoke those kind of nightmarish visions to inflame his readership, before proceeding to discuss specifics with slightly more restraint — but by then the ominous mood has already been set.

    (And then if you question him he does his own version of Haters Gotta Hate, where the _real_ reason you disagree with him is the conflict between your simpleminded adoration of the president and his own unalloyed righteousness. That shit is aggravating when it comes from him directly, and when it comes from his fans it has the same effect as a redneck lovingly saying ‘git r dun’.)

  346. 346
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan:

    go eat the barrel of your father’s pistol

    now that would seem to be advocating meatspace suicide. is that correct?

  347. 347
    MacKenna says:

    @Allan: Allan is ABL’s troll bitch as near as I can tell from his comments. He hasn’t argued a single point successfully.

    If you support the NDAA, merely because Obama supports it, you’re roughly the equivalent of a Bush circa 2003 supporter. If that’s who you want to be, that’s your right. But you can’t expect not to be ridiculed for it.

  348. 348
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    pardon, i dont have a dick.

    Hence my use of the term “imaginary” in my comment.

    Reading is fundamental.

    I’m going to go to the grocery store now and pick up a few essentials. If you’d like to seize this opportunity to declare yourself the winner of this thread and wave your imaginary dick around in some kind of an endzone dance of celebration, knock yourself out.

    Meanwhile, the AUMF sucks, the NDAA codifies it, the NDAA was worse before it was changed with pressure from the White House, it will be signed into law, and the status quo will not be significantly affected.

    An overwhelming majority of our legislators should be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity, and I’ll be blogging about how to do that over at ABLC, for those whose goals for the future are greater than winning threads at BJ.

  349. 349
    smintheus says:

    @Hawes: It’s an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. Surely there would be time to vote again on an NDAA stripped of the controversial amendment, before any further military appropriations are needed to keep the money flowing to the Pentagon.

  350. 350
    Samara Morgan says:

    @MacKenna: not really. Obama is not actually a liberal. He is a machiavellian pragmatist.
    I can write the 4×4 game theoretic payoff matrix for every move he has made.
    That doesn’t mean hes always right.
    But he does the best he can.

  351. 351
  352. 352
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan:

    some kind of an endzone dance of celebration, knock yourself out.

    i think i’ll kneel to mecca and recite the adhan.
    ;)

  353. 353
    MacKenna says:

    Ok, so I tweeted Angry Black Lady this question.

    @AngryBlackLady So let me get this straight. You supported Bush creating indefinite detention? No? But you’re OK with Obama continuing it.

    Here are her responses:

    @MyPetGloat I’m v. impressed with your ability to counter an argument. Your coursework at Greenwald University has served you well, dear.

    DING! RT @pennyd2: @MyPetGloat @[me] Just to be accurate, I don’t think you have any idea what I have or haven’t objected to in the past.

    @MyPetGloat #yaawwwwwwwwn

    @MyPetGloat would you like a cookie or something? #yawn

    She won’t answer the question.

  354. 354
    MacKenna says:

    Angry Black Lady and her supporters are calling everyone who questions her on her position on indefinite detention “a right wing sock puppet”.

  355. 355
    Corner Stone says:

    @MacKenna: She’s still trying to parse the language of the ACLU and HRW’s statements for any hint the GG “had a hand in drafting” their releases.
    She’s a sad little person.

  356. 356
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Hey, can anyone post a link to all the ABL posts during the GWB administration shredding the “professional left” for their egregious misuse of language when describing nefarious policies of that administration. Thanks.

    What do you mean, she never did that? But that would make her a…

    Weird.

  357. 357
    NR says:

    @MacKenna: You almost have to feel sorry for ABL. She has such a dilemma on her hands. On the one hand, this detention policy is unconstitutional and dangerous and goes against everything America is supposed to stand for, but on the other hand, Obama supports it!

  358. 358

    Let’s do a thought (I know that’s hard) experiment, let’s just move the clock back to ’06 and just how much outrage would there be here about the complaints regarding this section of the Bill? Anybody?

    Which of you that is exploding that it is a part of a larger bill would have had the same complaint in that year? Do you really want to come out and state clearly that in ’06 you’d have had exactly no problem and that you would not have blamed GWB for signing the thing?

    No shit, step up to the plate. Your opponents in this case are some kind of traitors to the cause of… well whatever it is that you’re claiming. ABL has defended her stuff, now’s your chance to do it. Please, please use this occasion to step up and support GWB – theoretically, of course.

    (edit) this is your Democratic Party in action and sadly enough I am one.

  359. 359
    Formerly Formerly (Formerly Formerly) says:

    One need only look at the 800 plus comments at Balloon Juice yesterday

    You know, I’ve read all the threads, and it’s mostly the same 10-20 people going back at forth at it, making dozens and dozens of posts each, with a few others chiming in here and there.

    A few hundred critical and/or uncritical comments on this blog are not necessarily a threat, nor a boon, to President Obama’s reelection chances.

    No, seriously, you have heard of the adage about tempests and teapots, yes?

    The comment sections of the Internets – they are not quite as powerful as Left Blogistan sometimes believes them to be.

  360. 360
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @MacKenna

    I tweeted her an even easier question:

    Do you hold all POTUS to the same set of critical standards?

    She had me blocked, after telling me I couldn’t be a real person because I followed GG.

  361. 361
    Corner Stone says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    can anyone post a link to all the ABL posts during the GWB administration shredding the “professional left”

    I’m sorry. You do mean “the righteous opposition” to an unchecked presidency. Right?
    It’s not really odd that people who gave a shit about subjects a couple years ago, and still give those same shits, are being castigated by brutal individuals who will stab your fucking spleen to protect their guy.

  362. 362
    Corner Stone says:

    @Chuck Butcher:

    ABL has defended her stuff, now’s your chance to do it.

    You mean she pooped all over this blog.

  363. 363
    Corner Stone says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Do you hold all POTUS to the same set of critical standards?

    HAHAHAHA….BWAHAHAHAHA…Oh, mercy…

  364. 364
    MacKenna says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Here’s angry black lady’s last word on the matter.

    AngryBlackLady Imani ABL
    @MyPetGloat I have answered. Read my blog. I don’t work on your time schedule. Lates!

    I asked her a simple question. Do you support indefinite detention. She will not answer the question. It’s a pretty simple question, as simple as “do you support torture”…you know..SIMPLE.

    Here is one of her fanbots whom ABL retweets:

    pennyd2 @MyPetGloat Where did I ever say I supported it? I do think it is complicated issue.

    @MyPetGloat I also think that most I see against it have no solutions to offer. Just complaints.

    @MyPetGloat I also think that dealing with a situation you inherited is very different than creating the situation in the first place.

    @MyPetGloat I live in the real world. So does Obama. But I won’t blame O for the difficulty in dealing with a situation he didn’t create

    @MyPetGloat [Republicans] created they detainees. Obama did not. He is dealing with the aftermath & he’s not the one who put that language in bill.

    The lack of insight, foresight, and thought is astounding. This is Republicanspeak all over again. These morons are cultists.

  365. 365

    @Corner Stone:
    Well, it’s John’s blog and she is sometimes really good. Don’t drag me into that stuff, as I said, she’s defended her stuff and I think I’m asking a valid question.

  366. 366
    Corner Stone says:

    @Chuck Butcher: She hasn’t defended shit. You don’t like that, don’t claim it.

  367. 367
    MacKenna says:

    Obamabots use the same Republican excuses, rationales, & jargon to defend the indefensible. Like all cultists, they are weak thinkers.

  368. 368
    ABL says:

    @MacKenna: obviously because i won’t address your questions on your time schedule means that i’m a cultist obamabot obot {insert whatever here]. in fact, you should probably primary me. right?

    it couldn’t possibly be that i’ve been at the hair salon for the past 3 hours and have had several glasses of wine and am not in the mood to argue with you about the NDAA right now.

    here are my further thoughts on the NDAA: http://www.angryblacklady.com/.....-the-ndaa/ Perhaps it will clear up some of your misconceptions about my position on this issue.

    now if you don’t mind, i’m going to go to a bar to continue this nice little buzz i have going. try not to take that as an indication that i think you should be indefinitely detained forthwith.

    Cheers!

  369. 369
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @ABL:

    it couldn’t possibly be that i’ve been at the hair salon for the past 3 hours and have had several glasses of wine and am not in the mood to argue with you about the NDAA right now.

    Lord Almighty, I think we can just chalk this up as a loss.

  370. 370
    2doubleeagles says:

    I find everyone here very knowledgeable and also entertaining, but yet gullible, as to what has already happened years ago under the Cheney-Rummy-Wolfie etc… doctrine. “The Patriot Act” has already removed our rights, as is evident in the streets of almost every city in the U.S. Just short term holdings, as a test to start, and don’t worry about warrantless entry, which was started long ago either. The corruption in our government will continue and if you think you can stop it…you are more gullible than I first thought. Good luck to all!

  371. 371
    MacKenna says:

    @ABL: It’s a yes or no answer, ABL, which judging by your propensity for spin and typing a whole lot of words to cover your bullshit I think you can manage, regardless of how many glasses of wine you’ve consumed.

    Plus you’re still tweeting bullshit at me, past the “Not on your time schedule. Lates!” twattage.

  372. 372
    Corner Stone says:

    @ABL: Shorter ABL:
    “I will poop out a post on BJ, abandon it, then retreat to my Echo Chamber for anyone who wants to read more of my poop.”

  373. 373

    @Corner Stone:
    I’d say it is pretty obvious from my post that I don’t agree with her “reasoning.” I think it is specious bullshit and I think it is entirely personality driven which is the reason for the question.

    I think it is absurd in the extreme to assert that anybody who’d be upset by this provision is so ignorant as to not know that it is a part of a Bill and it is worse to take someone’s writing out of context to assert thay claimed something they did not. GG is not my hero and never has been, but I won’t lie about him to score points about an issue that does not even begin to exist.

    I read at least part of her stuff because she is sometimes a real good read, other times…well I’ve only wasted a few minutes.

  374. 374
    AA+ Bonds says:

    I think the OP has more or less stated that there will be no defense of OP’s position forthcoming.

    Probably time to close curtains on this one and give credit where credit is due. I only hope OP will oblige by posting about something else next time.

  375. 375
    elftx says:

    I do Declare

    Terrorists WIN !!

    Instead of discussing who sponsored the bill, what it SPECIFICALLY states..and going from there.

    No we gotta have flame wars..and He said, She said bullshit…WTF
    Herman Cain where are ya when we need ya man???

    I don’t care if others feel ABL thinks she has to defend every little thing the President does.

    He is still after all, a man that currently has Executive Powers..and this bill (seemingly) increases them.
    I would prefer the courts decide.. until Gingrich sends the Marshalls after them gosh darn judges that don’t cotton to public opinion. That will teach us all now won’t it.

    Slippery slope, slippery slope..Magna Carta also too.

  376. 376

    So Boner has made sure the Pres won’t have to sign the XL bill… well, at least not as is.

  377. 377
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    God, that pitiful display sums it up.

  378. 378
    Corner Stone says:

    @NR:

    She has such a dilemma on her hands. On the one hand, this detention policy is unconstitutional and dangerous and goes against everything America is supposed to stand for, but on the other hand, Obama supports it!

    So, what’s her dilemma?

  379. 379
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    Certainly. But people will suffer and die, and terrible wrongs will be done in our name. :(

  380. 380
    MacKenna says:

    See if you ask me if I am for or against indefinite detention, I don’t hesitate to say AGAINST. But Obamabots say “it’s complicated.” They say “he didn’t start it.” They say “he can’t change it.”

    Not one of these clowns has said to me they are opposed to indefinite detention. Not one. I think that is very telling and frightening.

    Indeed, I don’t know what is more frightening, the in-your-face Republitwats you can easily peg or people who were for protecting the constitution before they were against it because it’s “complicated”.

    Tell that to the indefinitely detained who can’t access lawyers or judges or courts, who can’t see their loved ones, who are locked down. For as long as the government wants.

    Yes or no. It’s a simple question.

  381. 381
    Corner Stone says:

    @ABL:

    it couldn’t possibly be that i’ve been at the hair salon for the past 3 hours and have had several glasses of wine and am not in the mood to argue with you about the NDAA right now.

    “It couldn’t possibly be that i’ve chosen to poop all over BJ and every commenter here.”

  382. 382
    tweedstereo says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: After lobbing a bomb, the most prudent thing to do is to get the heck out of the blast radius. The fact that her first post referring to the imminent signing of the “new and improved” NDAA was the link to Shook’s piece is also telling. As it turns out, it was a must read. A must read that demonstrated some truly craptastic writing and analysis aimed primarily at casting aspersions on GG and his “ilk.”

    Comedy gold if not for the obvious fumbled set-up and goofy punchline.

    To paraphrase Milty in his comment section, “This post is NOT about the bill!”

  383. 383
    Corner Stone says:

    @MacKenna: But, it’s a “big bill” with other things in it! You can’t just say Obama can veto One Part! Other words describing things that are obvious!
    Plus, jerbs!

  384. 384
    Corner Stone says:

    @tweedstereo: It was “An important read”.
    Let’s not forget that.

  385. 385
    Cain says:

    @sherifffruitfly:

    “civil liberties never comes from easily identifiable threat but by thousand cuts.”

    Tell that to black folks when jim crow laws were passed.

    Tell that to brown folks in Arizona.

    Tell that to brown folks in Georgia.

    My guess is that the “1000 cuts” crap is really only WHITE civil rights.

    The difference here is that blacks and brown folks didn’t have rights to begin with. They were over time given civil liberties because they fought for them and got them.

    What I’m talking about is existing civil liberties that we take for granted being taken away from us. Once you’ve fought for them you need to be ever vigilant that they aren’t taken away.

  386. 386
    El Tiburon says:

    Greenwald relies upon a loyal chorus of Twitter followers, blog readers, and his friends in the media to rapidly respond to whatever narrative he concocts using this manipulative strategy knowing that few people—especially in the media—will do the work required to place his screeds in their correct political and policy contexts. Sometimes because they’re his friends, and sometime because they’re just, as my friend @Shoq often says, “pathetically lazy.”

    So much bullshit. The silver lining here is ABL has finally shot what little credibility she had to shit.

  387. 387

    @LT:

    This is the really sick ingredient in ABL’s and other “Firebagger!” screamers sauce. They MUST, at all costs, try to make you believe that Greenwald’s true motive – his entire reason for being – is to be mean to Obama. It is so fundamentally childish.

    This is the same Greenwald who was pushing the meme that al Awlaki’s American citizenship gave him sort of magical protection that he wouldn’t have sans said citizenship. Pleases explain that- an intellectual heavyweight like Greenwald couldn’t possibly make a mistake over that, could he?

  388. 388
    Cain says:

    @CT Voter:

    Why isn’t that a primary goal, under any circumstances? The vote was, what 86 – 13? Why such a lopsided vote? Why won’t people pick up the phone, send an e-mail, pick up the phone again instead of getting absolutely bent out of shape because of something Obama will do? Why are people so intent on ignoring one of the branches of the government and content to focus on only one?

    This blog is a microcosm of that. We have a lot of people who do focus on the President and the reaction to their reaction to the President. I’m not quite willing to give him a pass on this one. He should have worked with his democratic allies and worked to defeat that bill. Clearly, there must be some kind of agreement between dems and the President in regards to this. The fact that it puts the president in a bad position seems lost on congressional dems.

    In any case, the main effort here is to make the case to the American people. The reason we only address one branch is because either 1) we’ve given up on the American people and have written them off 2) deeply believe that we want some kind of benevolent father figure 3) it makes for great press and people get noticed when they attack the president as they get media attention or some combination of all of them.

  389. 389
    amk says:

    @MacKenna: Yes, obots are for ‘indefinite detention’ since obama didn’t veto it. What an idjit.

  390. 390
    AA+ Bonds says:

    I just don’t get the anti-left Democrats anymore. After Occupy Wall Street, what do they have to gain? Who’s their constituency? Are they trying to win back the Village?

    Independents who oppose this bill will vote Democratic. Democrats who oppose this bill will vote Democratic. Democrats who uneasily support this bill will vote Democratic. There’s no benefit to attacking critics of this bill at all, unless you’re a Republican strategist.

    Or, unless you actually believe that this bill should have been signed into law, which I don’t think ABL really believes.

  391. 391

    @Chuck Butcher:

    this is your Democratic Party in action and sadly enough I am one.

    I’m not exactly sure what’s going on behind the scenes, but the fact that Carl Levin supported this amendment tells me that there’s more going on than meets the eye.

  392. 392
    amk says:

    @John Cole: yeah, why didn’t obama walk into that particular ‘he is so unamerican’ political buzz saw ? How obama has disappointed me.

    Get over it, john.

  393. 393
    AA+ Bonds says:

    Heavens to Betsy, a political buzzsaw you say!

  394. 394
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    I’m not exactly sure what’s going on behind the scenes, but the fact that Carl Levin supported this amendment tells me that there’s more going on than meets the eye.

    I suppose we shouldn’t wait on a properly functioning democracy, which would throttle the answer out of him. Better to put our trust in the Lord!

  395. 395
    tweedstereo says:

    @Corner Stone: I think you spoke too soon! Wait…what’s that?

    “ZOMG FIREBAGGERS and other ilk! I’m off to the bar! Lates”

    Plus, you know, this is a defense appropriations bill, so you know, vetoing because it contains non-germane amendments like the McCain/Levin thingy is politically imprudent and NOT pragmatic.

    I guess the bully pulpit of the Presidency has morphed into the “magical whiny bully pulpit” since it has not been put to practice hardly at all during this administration. Who would really take seriously a line in the sand drawn NOW? Principles? It’s election season folks! The President has to cover both flanks, his center-right flank and his right-right flank.

    And in fairness, as far as professionals go, I guess the professional left just can’t seem to go along to get along. They must be just liars and losers.

  396. 396
    Corner Stone says:

    And now, the Number 1 smash single!

    “I’m going to poop on you.”
    By ABL and the Poop Deck Chorus.

  397. 397
    tweedstereo says:

    @Corner Stone: Right, my bad. Language is important. Damn it, it must have been a residual effect of exposure to the professional left that confused my wording.

  398. 398
    tweedstereo says:

    @Corner Stone: Auto-tune that mother and it’s a smash!

  399. 399
    amk says:

    @tweedstereo: Until the professional left manages to get someone elected as a dog catcher, they are fucking losers, who knee-cap progress every step of the way. 99% doesn’t give a shite what you have to say.

  400. 400
    tweedstereo says:

    @AA+ Bonds: She’s torn apparently…doesn’t like the AUMF, which this kind of expounds upon, but doesn’t like President Obama putting himself in any politically compromising situations.

    You need to be pragmatic, grind the sausage, not make clear compelling cases outlined by morally principled stands that could be warped to be used against you (there’s that “magic whiny bully pulpit” thing again), and hey like the economy, Obama inherited expanded executive branch powers from Bush so it only makes pragmatic sense to keep things basically at the status quo or else risk the backlash of “independent” voters as opposed to using the voice of the Presidency to drum out a case from a moral high-ground.

    We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

  401. 401
    MacKenna says:

    Angry Black Lady finally – and grudgingly – gave me an answer. :)

    AngryBlackLady Imani ABL @MyPetGloat NO. #happy #crank

    It only took her three fucking hours. Must have been the wine and the blow dryer. LOL.

  402. 402
    tweedstereo says:

    @amk: Who is 99% and what do they know about what I have to say?
    Who are you?
    How many dog catcher campaigns have you worked on?
    Why not go get your buzz on and lighten the hell up.
    Do you define progress as 1 step forward as long as everyone basically agrees, 1 step back if there is anyone could possibly raise a stink (UNLESS, you’re a professional lefty!), and otherwise just walk in place?
    Enlighten me without your defensive BS, please.

  403. 403
    tweedstereo says:

    @MacKenna: Don’t feel bad, at least it’s concise. Not sure what #crank is about though…maybe you’re a buzz kill.

  404. 404
    Corner Stone says:

    Man, tough crowd tonite.

  405. 405
    MacKenna says:

    @sherifffruitfly: is a veritable troll on Twitter. Indeed, I can’t tell him apart from the Republitwatters who employ the same insults and accusations (i.e. you’re a retard, firebagger, libertarian) against their imaginary foes.

    He’s a loon.

  406. 406
    MacKenna says:

    @tweedstereo: Oh she’s a fury and a half. The woman blathered her impossibly “busy schedule” at me as the reason for not being able to say where she stood on indefinite detention. She said she was at the hairdresser for three hours (where she was tweeting nonstop obviously), then it was the wine consumption, then some bar meetup, and then she accused me of demanding to know her fucking schedule. Which I never did. I only asked her where she stood on indefinite detention.

    She’s a neurotic fool and I think Cole made a mistake inviting her into this blog. She is using it as a campaign platform. I have liked this blog for its relative objectivity and ability to cut through the crap. But ABL posts crap, too much crap. Some of what she posts is great stuff, but when it comes to Obama she has no objectivity. She has lost every critical faculty. She is fighting a war against liberals who take issue with mistakes Obama is making. It’s absurd.

  407. 407
    dmbeaster says:

    This post is simply not about what matters (i.e., the knicknames given to bills, what GG thinks or writes on the topic, etc.). I wish we could get back to some reasonable discourse on this.
    Military detention, including indefinite detention during war, has always been legal (they are called POWs). Doing so for US citizens and resident aliens has pretty much always been illegal (with the exception of serving in foreign hostile armies and some others as I recall). The Al Queda threat and Bush excesses tested the limits of that doctrine. Al Queda because the whole issue of irregular non-state actors as combatants is basically new. Bush excesses because they were so ridiculously extreme in every way.
    There have been a whole series of court decisions on these problems and screwball Congressional action to deal with it since 9/11. The screwball factor has continued after 2008 due to Congress trying to keep Gitmo going and to prevent civilian trials of terrorists. I can understand why tension is so high on this issue since we have the Bush years as a model of how bad the abuse can be.
    In the grand scheme of things, the current legislation is simply not all that remarkable. It started out as crazy, and then diminished to much less so though still odious, in part due to Obama veto threats. It then passed with veto proof margins.
    I do think Obama has failed to show leadership on an important civil rights issue, which has been a characteristic of his presidency. Maybe it is an aspect of his centrism, or some other dysfunction of this White House.
    There is a lot of hyperbole on the issue, including from the ACLU and for good reason on the larger issue. But I dont see it for this particular legislation, although there is always cause for concern when vague compromise legislation gets passed on such a sensitive subject.
    GG has clearly been over the top on this, in his typical hyperbolic fashion. His posts here were way over the line in treating Obama defenders as cultists (his word).
    I want the ACLU to be hyperbolic on issues of civil rights, but I dont necessarily want my political leader to be so. Obama is dealing with crazification on this issue, including a large faction in his own party. There is not much more he could do – a veto would be overridden. Deciding to go nutball on him cause of this, though, makes little sense.
    I vastly prefer him to any Republican, and so should anybody who cares about this issue. Complain loudly, but labeling Obama supporters as cultists, as GG does, is foolhardy. You can prefer to be ideologically pure on this, while losing the bigger war.

  408. 408

    The yell at your Congressman line is pretty weak, it certainly is true that they passed the mess and apparently even wrote it and should pay a price for it. What that line would like to ignore is that the Veto exists for a good reason and it resides with the other Branch for a good reason. NOBODY gets exempted.

    That apparently is too damn much for some people to understand, it is just beyond them that the veto exists as a bulwark against exactly this kind of horseshit and the over-ride provisions exist to give push-back to horseshit.

    You’d think this place was a fucking kindergarten.

  409. 409

    @dmbeaster:
    umm, OK – so you’d have written this exact same thing in ’06? It really is a fairly easy measuring stick of what you’re getting ready write.

    Yes, I railed against this shit the first time around way back in the way back. And yes, what you’re proposing as POW policy is life imprisonment without trial since the “War” that you’re referring to first of all isn’t one and second of all will never end… not ever.

  410. 410
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: bulshytt Hall Monitor Allan. Cole can IP ban me anytime he likes.
    you are just tryin’ to bate me into postin’ those mails arent you?
    aroint thee, demon!
    Through dangers untold and hardships unnumbered, I have fought my way here to the castle beyond the Goblin City to take back the blog that you have stolen, for my will is as strong as yours, and my kingdom is as great.
    You have no power here!
    begone, Hall Monitor Allan!

  411. 411
    pattonbt says:

    @Chuck Butcher: I’m with Chuck on this one. I get people on the left want to give some political cover for Obama and point out the pickle he is in politically. But I do know, all of us to a person, would be howling at this bill if it was Bush and the circumstances were exactly the same. The gnashing of teeth here could be heard on Mars. Evil Dictator!!

    What is the harm for O’s veto if he, in principle, isn’t for this? So it gets passed anyway and he can say why he vetoed and see what the public thinks. In the end, I believe he believes it is OK, and it disgusts me, but It is not an Obama specific disgust, just a current US political and societal disgust that this is what counts for acceptable policies.

    This bill is on outrage full stop. And anyone who casts a vote in favor of it owns the shame of supporting it (whether it is for politically expedient reasons, which are the worst, or actual belief in the policy).

    And I don’t care about ABL, GG, JC, O, GWB or anyone on this matter. It’s wrong and everyone voting for it is a piece of shit. And yes, I am a ful stop D voter. O has my vote and money no matter what. Pragmatism comes first. And there are nuance differences enough between D and R that voting for lesser of two evils, even at this time in history for the US, is appropriate.

    But if the US doesn’t turn it around soon, that line might get crossed permanently where it doesn’t matter anymore.

  412. 412
    Samara Morgan says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    But people will suffer and die, and terrible wrongs will be done in our name.

    bi la kayfah (it is understood)

  413. 413
    Samara Morgan says:

    @pattonbt: oh patton, the veto would be pointless political kabuki that could be exploited by the other side for Great Evil.
    the 4×4 ToM (theory of Moves) matrix shows zero payoff for Obama in vetoing the bill.

  414. 414

    @pattonbt:
    411 comments later and this place still sounds about like it did at two FP posts ago and it will continue to and this is exactly what is wrong with what gets called “politics”.

    As long as it is “our guy” it’s just pragmatism and no there’s nothing there, it was there, you’re going to hurt “our guy”, you’re a shrill asshole. Nothing changes without push… our guy, their guy, some fucking other guy.

    No, ACA is not fucking fine and everybody knows it isn’t, but complaining about its short comings is… all of the same. If you don’t think it is enough exactly how the fuck do you expect to get it improved? Some magic damn pony is going to descend and fix it? Or will such a thing get fixed because the public is clearly dissatisfied and loudly so? My friend Ron Wyden stuck his foot in it and I posted a real complaint, and yes – we’ve been friends. That fucking stung and fuck you go-along-get-alongs if you can’t man up in the least. BTW, the Senate Sgt-Arms has visited so at the least somebody’s staffer wanted to know.

  415. 415
    pattonbt says:

    @Samara Morgan: It may or may not be pointless. And to be honest, I don’t care about the kabuki theater business. I understand it exists and I understand why people play it, but on this issue, people who play with it are fuckstains (at least where I draw the line on things). I know it’s easy for me to be principled sitting on my couch watching TV with no skin in the game (except to see my civil liberties continue to erode, or maybe more aptly put, the eroded liberties further enshrined as law), but that is why I look to those who can make a difference to do so. And when my side doesn’t I curse them like I would curse the other side.

    And so then votes on issues should only be undertaken if there is a winning chance? So why fucking bother then? We should just give up, role over and play dead? Some of the payoff for NOT vetoing the bill could be a further erosion of the left where the window on liberties keeps moving the right. Long game, 11th dimensional chess and all, right?

  416. 416
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Hey, I’m back from the grocery store, so if you haven’t done the honorable thing and killed yourself yet, we can continue our conversation.

    Maybe we can talk about how it’s such a horrible thing that I emailed John about you that you’re threatening to publish the emails you exchanged with John about me? Because that would be a hoot.

  417. 417
    different-church-lady says:

    Man, a whole lot of you apparently learned your debating skills during recess in the fifth grade.

  418. 418
    tweedstereo says:

    @MacKenna: In large part, I agree. The lameness that is the “ZOMG! FIREBAGGER!!” schtick is BORING, especially when there are ample reasons to not be 100% PrObama on specific issues that can be discussed reasonably without accusing people of “under-cutting” the President.

    Listen, as it stands now, I see a President that has made a good effort to be accommodating to the opposition…to no avail. Now his platform is what? “I’ve made significant concessions to the Republicans, and have downplayed my own stances to placate the chattering class in Washington, and take a look at who they’re running for President!”

    People like ABL who downplay the “bully pulpit” dismiss the fact that it’s not meant as a magic wand to do extraordinary things, it’s meant to apply political pressure. The self-declared “pragmatists” can go on and on about the failure of the 2010 elections, but where was the administration? What cases were made, in a definitive way that rightly painted the Republicans as obstinate toadies? What candidates with strong progressive policy positions did they go out on a limb for? That is part of the bully pulpit – creating a marked distinction between you and the opposition and being forcefully repetitive about it. It’s not just what you say on your weekly address or at pressers, you also have to provide explicit and implicit support to candidates that would be political allies on issues like civil liberties, something you ran on as a champion of.

    The constant, well what could he do? They twisted his arm! Is plain cockamamie rationalization.

  419. 419
    tweedstereo says:

    @different-church-lady: ZING!!! What an erudite observation!

  420. 420
    tweedstereo says:

    @Chuck Butcher: Pragmatism means take your castor oil! It may taste like shit, it may not cure what ails you, but it’s the least we could do!

  421. 421
    Corner Stone says:

    @pattonbt:

    And yes, I am a ful stop D voter. O has my vote and money no matter what.

    Then why have you opened your stupid mouth? If you catch him fucking a goat? Like ABL, that’s just fine with you?

  422. 422
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: Nuh-uh! You did!

  423. 423
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo:

    The self-declared “pragmatists” can go on and on about the failure of the 2010 elections, but where was the administration?

    Touring the country, delivering a rousing address to audiences in many different states that all pretty much went like this one he delivered in Madison, WI, urging voters not to give the car keys back to the Republicans after they ran the country into the ditch.

  424. 424
    Samara Morgan says:

    @pattonbt: nah. be subtle and subversive.

  425. 425
    tweedstereo says:

    I’m just wracking my brains here (I realize that phrase opens the door for a lame zinger, oh well), but for all you professional pragmatists out there that poo poo the “whiny magical bully pulpit” – please point out where Obama has applied it, and where it has proven to be a political stinker. Just some issue that he’s taken a stand on, refused unreasonable concessions, and came up with egg on his face. Just one instance and I’ll at least think you’re coming from a place that’s not simply being an apologist.

    Thanks!

  426. 426
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: I thought you voted for McCain?

  427. 427
    pattonbt says:

    @Corner Stone: I’m sure I have lines, but the alternative is much, much worse (active further destruction versus holding the line doing some bad and some good). Thats pretty much where I stand. On this issue he sucks balls, but on others he is great and others, meh. Hope that helps.

  428. 428
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: lol. im just tempted to show the juicitariat what Cole actually said about you…but they likely already know.
    because even when ABL talked Cole into frontpaging one of your weaksauce posts you couldn’t escape your bracket, Hall Monitor Allan.

    the moving finger writes, and having writ…moves on.
    nor all your piety nor wit can lure it back to cancel half a line…
    nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

    ;)

  429. 429
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: Oh, I didn’t realize that getting your walking shoes well after the fact Scott Walker started dismembering civil service in his state and doing a stump speech really covered the whole thing. He really did a solid for Russ Feingold there!

  430. 430
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan: I hope for your sake no one catches you fucking that goat. ABL won’t mind. But…

  431. 431
    amk says:

    @Allan: Bringing in facts doesn’t sit well with poutrage brigade afflicted with obama derangement syndrome.

  432. 432
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: I don’t think that making a stump speech a couple weeks after Scott Walker became Governor (and LONG after the Tea Party metastasized) covered the whole thing. Russ Feingold was definitely feeling the love from the Obama administration, and instead the people just chose Ron Johnson. I guess that’s an example of being tardy to the party…

  433. 433
    MacKenna says:

    @dmbeaster: Obama is losing voters and it’s not because they are drifting to the Republicans. Obama’s economic policies have being written by Goldman Sachs execs (in his Whitehouse) and his security policies pretty much match what Bush & Cheney put into place.

    Those are indisputable facts.

  434. 434
    tweedstereo says:

    @amk: Yes, I’m so very deranged by Obama that I have qualms about how his strategies have played out. That was a giant fact too, one speech in the weeks leading up to the 2010 elections. I’m floored!

  435. 435
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: Non-responsive to my question. Did you vote for McCain in 2008, or was I misinformed?

  436. 436
    Samara Morgan says:

    @MacKenna: where is O losing voters?
    link or GTFO.

  437. 437
    tweedstereo says:

    Language is important…Obama Madison speech wasn’t well after Scott Walker enacted his Tea Party agenda, it was a few weeks after the campaign Scott Walker won on began. My apologies. I must be deranged.

  438. 438
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: you are non-responsive to my sapentia poetica.
    c’mon, take the stick out of your ass and hang up your Hall Moniter badge.

  439. 439
  440. 440
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo: I’m sorry. I thought when you asked the question “where was the administration?” that you were ignorant of his nationwide barnstorming prior to the elections, and that you would appreciate being made aware of the facts.

  441. 441
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo: Obama Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

    That campaign of speeches, which failed to stem the GOP tide or save Russ Feingold’s ass in WI, might also qualify as an example for your other petulant demand that someone show you where Obama tried to do something but failed.

    But I’m confident you’ll just keep moving those goalposts. That’s what Obama Derangement Syndrome does to a person.

  442. 442
    Coldie says:

    I was honestly really surprised after yesterdays post that this blogger is still posting here. Pretty sad. Her post was beyond amateurish, as was her comment section dip out. Just a big red flag for integrity all around.

    I don’t comment much on this site but I have to say, her posts have been getting progressively more terrible. Her arguments are so obviously flawed, and her personal, misguided agenda is naked in her writings. I really don’t understand what she is doing with the microphone. She brings nothing to the table, if anything a net negative for the discussions at this site, regardless of your personal support levels for Obama. What is she doing here???

    I love BJ, and I enjoy the dialogue here. I have my disagreements with some of the writing, and Obama has lost my support, but for the most part I think the thoughts expressed here are worth having. I understand the low value of one readers opinion, but I can do without the dog and pony sideshow. The substance is all I want, well that and the pet pictures. And ABL provides literally nothing positive or insightful.

  443. 443
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: c’mon Allan. fall on your ego sword and apolo.
    then we can quit callin’ you Hall Monitor Allan.

  444. 444
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Coldie: your nic is unfamiliar to me….are you a sock puppet?

  445. 445
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: If I’m understanding your gibberish, it appears that you feel I owe someone an apology for something. Can you ask the spirochetes to be still long enough for you to write a statement that explains for what I owe an apology, and to whom, so that I might give your request its due consideration?

  446. 446
    MacKenna says:

    @Samara Morgan: Let me qualify that for you. Obama’s popularity is at an all-time low. Obama’s popularity has plummeted 30 points from his career high of 79 percent. He lost a significant number of votes in the last election as people grew disillusioned with him.

    The only thing saving Obama right now is the fact that Gingrich is such a shitbag, he has even lower poll numbers than Obama.

  447. 447
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: to Cornerstone and LT of course.
    unless you want to keep the Hall Monitor badge.
    I dont think its a good look on you, but chacun a son gout.
    ;)

  448. 448
    Samara Morgan says:

    @MacKenna:

    He lost a significant number of votes in the last election as people grew disillusioned with him.

    ummm…was Obama running for something in 2010? cite please?

  449. 449
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: Thanks Allan! Ignorant and petulant! I was ignorant of the fact the doing a speech tour in the weeks prior to a mid-term election (after the political opposition had been positioning themselves since his inauguration) is THE example of using the Presidency to make a forceful, principled stance. And I guess it is petty to ask what major issues that Obama campaigned on, and subsequently pushed forcefully for once elected, that failed. He stood by DADT and that succeeded. When has he brought the fight to Congress and appealed to the American people and lost? When has he gone out on a limb, even one that polls well but is naysayed by the DC bubble, like the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and lost?

  450. 450

    @Robert:

    Change takes time.

    This is one of the most important things to bear in mind, but it’s amazing to me how many people seem not to get that.

    Look back to, say, 1970 or so. That’s when I’d say the Republicans really began to go nuts, that’s when they began to behave truly destructively. Things were a lot different then. In a lot of ways, I think the attitudes in this country were a lot healthier. Yes, we had Nixon in office, and yes, Vietnam was still going on, and yes, we were fairly split as a country.

    But people as a rule, it seems to me (I was barely sentient in 1970) that people still had some reason to believe that things were getting better. Things had gotten a whole lot better in many ways in the 10 years before 1970, after all, Vietnam and assassinations and Nixon’s election notwithstanding. Civil Rights Laws has passed. The U.S. was seriously working to do away with poverty. We’d begun to work on cleaning up the air and water and land.

    And then, looking back, it seems like about 1970, things began to go the other way. There were spells where the slide slowed down, like when Carter was in office or Clinton, and there were spells where we went awfully fast, like Reagan’s years and those of Bush the Younger. But we’ve been going the same way fairly consistently for 40 years–the wrong way, I would say.

    We need to keep that in mind. We didn’t go from the Great Society to the Tea Party in 3 years. We didn’t even go the whole way to the edge of falling into the toilet in the 8 years Bush was in office, though it sometimes seems like it. No, we took 40 years to get where we are. 40 years.

    Now, if you look at 1970 and 2011, the change is astounding. But from 1970 to 1980, or 1980 to 1990 or 1990 to 2000, or even from 2000 to today aren’t as noticable. If you go year by year, the change is almost beyond our threshold of what we can see.

    I belabor this point because it’s easy to forget. This mess we’re in took 40 years to make, and we aren’t going to clean it up in 2 or 4 or even 10. If that sounds defeatist, it isn’t. It’s just the truth. Look around this country: Look at what these 40 years have brought us. our economy, our foreign policy, Americans’ attitudes about government, the rise of the professional right-wing “intellectual”, or Wingnut Welfare, as we might better call it, and how it’s poisoned our society, as its pernicious beliefs have seeped into our folk wisdom.

    This is a shitpile miles high, and miles from side to side, and cleaning it up will take years. It would take years even if the shitters weren’t still heaping fresh loads onto it as I write this, as this country works to dig out from under it.

    And, if I might stay with this metaphor a while longer, the sheer array of kinds of shit is astounding, and this metaphorical shit is the kind that demands a different cleaning technique for each aromatic variety. We’re cleaning up 867 kinds of shit at the same time. Or we would be if we could. We clean up the worst kinds, the most destructive kinds, first, and as quickly as we can. This doesn’t mean that we leave the other kinds alone, but we can’t always spend as much time on them as we’d like. Hell, sometimes we even have to leave a particularly vicious, threatening mound–one we really do need to get to right now–alone while we set about cleaning something even worse.

    So, yes, things suck. Even under Obama. Even with a Democratic Senate. Some things, I’m sad to say, are even getting worse, even now, even under Obama, even with one house of Congress on our side. But we’re working on it. By “we”, I mean our leaders, and we ourselves, when we can, those of us who volunteer politically or for causes, those of us who teach or work in non-profits, even those in that most vilified of people, federal beaurecrats.

    We’re working on this. It takes time. And we’re going to screw up. We’re going to fail. We’re going to have to make and eat some shit sandwiches along the way, because compromisning is part of life. It just is. You can’t get around that. I’ve beaten this drum before, but I don’t understand how people can not get that the president can’t just “ram something through” or “use the bully pulpit” to get things done when we live in under a democratic system with diffused power. Obama can’t just decree something, or wave something away that we’d like him to.

    If you were to ask me whether Obama has made an mistakes, I’d answer “Yes,” without having to think much about it. If you asked me whether he’s dome things that left me feeling let down, things that I wish he hadn’t dome, or that I wish he’d done otherwise, I’d answer, “Yes,” just as readily. My guess is that ABL would as well, as indeed would nearly all “O-bots”. But I trust him to work to help get this mess cleaned up. He isn’t going to do it all in 4 or even 8 years. Whoever comes after him in 2016, and God willing, it’ll be another Democrat, will have to keep on cleaning. And it’ll be slow, and it’ll drive us nuts sometimes, but that’s how it is. We live, as I’ve said before, on Earth, and not in some fantasy land where Ricky the magic Pixie goes to visit his friend Rumpletweezer, who runs the Dinky Tinky shop in the foot of the magic oak tree by the wobbly dumdum bush in the shade of the magic glade down in Dingly Dell*.

    And here’s something else: If Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich or Al Franken or somebody else like that, even Glenn Greenwald himself, won the presidency in 2016, he would let you down, too. Let me hit that again: These guys would sorely disappoint you at times if they were president, too. Some of you, no doubt, would find some other hero to look to to save us, but the truth is, nobody’s going to “save us”. As I said, it’s take 40-ish years to get where we are, and no unicorn-riding fairies or wizards are going to swoop in and fix this for us.

    We live in a representative democracy, where we, all of us, have to take a hand in changing things. Nobody can do it for us. We need to do some things ourselves. We need to call our congressmen and senators and presidents, and write them, and tell them what we think. We need to get people we want elected to office. We need to do thankless jobs, like running for the school board and the town or county council or the county Democratic committee, or if you want to get ambitious, for the state legislatures or even, if you’re crazy ambitious for Congress. That’s what Republicans began doing in the 1970’s. How do you think they got us in this mess? It wasn’t by sitting out elections. It was by hard work.

    We will be cleaning up this unholy shitpile for years to come. We need to stop homing in and obsessing on every setback and every unpalatable compromise, and begin to take the long view here. We can do this. Obama is on our side. People who trash him for their own profit, or because it makes them feel pure, or because they can’t see beyond their own cause are not. We all have our causes. I do. But I can’t let myself be so hellbent on seeing my own cause through that I undercut my friends, who, after all, all have their own causes, too. Sometimes we have to take a hit to help somebody else.

    *Many thanks to Monty Python

  451. 451
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: Thanks for your sanctimonious observations about how ignorant and petulant I am. I guess any dissent as far as not being in lock-step with President Obama is deranged, right?

    I’m not moving goal posts when I ask for a real life example from “pragmatists” that shows Obama using the political strength of office to influence policy. I’m not asking for a magic wand, I’m asking for a sustained effort that doesn’t only arise weeks prior to mid-term elections and can be readily identified by “independents” as strong leadership – whether or not the chips fall in his favor in Congress.

    If you can’t even engage without falling back to Obama Derangement Syndrome (funny how many things seem to get carried over from the Bush administration to this one, right?), then just buzz off.

  452. 452
    amk says:

    @tweedstereo: yeah, why wasn’t obama campaigning from day one ? Why the fuck he had to govern ?

    This is the kinda intellectual puerility of firebaggers aka poutrage brigade that gets the derision and mocking that it deserves.

  453. 453
    tweedstereo says:

    @Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.): I agree with what you are saying, and slow motion IS better than no motion. At the same time, I can’t NOT point out things I think STILL need to change or improve in good conscience. I supported President Obama and continue to do so, but I’m not going to refrain from pointing out where I disagree with his course or his actions, and I’m not going to be shushed by people that I probably agree with on 85% of the issues who call me deranged for voicing my opinion.

    I love posts like yours. It reminds me that people can take things in different measures and not be assholes about it.

  454. 454
    tweedstereo says:

    @amk: I NEVER said he needed to campaign from day 1 and didn’t need to govern. If you actually read through what I’ve said, I wished he governed in a way that was more consistent with how he campaigned. You’re obviously not one for more than a sentence at a time, so I’ll space this out for you:

    Get.

    Off.

    Your.

    Own.

    High.

    Horse.

  455. 455
    tweedstereo says:

    @amk: You should be roundly mocked for the use of the phrase “intellectual puerility.” Seriously, satellites can probably see up your nostrils considering how high you must hold your nose.

    Is it not also puerile to dispense such facile and glib statements without any attempt at constructive engagement?!!? Egads, your intellectual girth is only challenged by the depth of a common saucer, my fellow internet denizen! For shame!

    #buzzoff

  456. 456
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo:

    When has he gone out on a limb, even one that polls well but is naysayed by the DC bubble, like the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and lost?

    That’s funny, I thought Obama lost on the issue of repealing the Bush tax cuts, an issue that polls well but is naysayed by the DC bubble.

  457. 457
    amk says:

    @tweedstereo: The complete CD of it all burns.

    Get.

    Off.

    Your.

    Own.

    High.

    Horse.

  458. 458
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: Really? I thought they were included in the argument over a heretofore routine vote on the debt ceiling? Quite a limb he went out on. You got me!

  459. 459
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo:

    If you can’t even engage without falling back to Obama Derangement Syndrome (funny how many things seem to get carried over from the Bush administration to this one, right?), then just buzz off.

    1. You yourself said that your obvious confusion about whether September of 2010 came before or after November of 2010 was — what’s that word? — “deranged”.

    2. I’m told that it’s bad form at BJ to demand that other people with whom you disagree leave the site. It’s likely to earn you a reputation as a “hall monitor”.

  460. 460
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Oh, thanks for clarifying. You feel that I owe Corner Stone and LT apologies for using irony that you don’t comprehend in a comment?

    Now that I understand what you’re saying, No.

    You can call me whatever names you wish, wave your invisible dick in my face until the cows come home, but you won’t bully me off this site. You’ll have to email Cole again and ask him to stop me.

  461. 461
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: Yes. It is deranged to be off by a couple weeks in the timeline and then subsequently point out the error. I also forgot the vociferous support for workers rights Obama gave after November 2010 as it regards Wisconsin. Deranged again I guess.

    Buzz off was to you personally in regards to me, I’m not making some judgement on your ability to be a prig to other posters here. Feel free!

  462. 462
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo: “Heretofore routine vote” is a construction that ignores the degree to which GOPers have made every vote, no matter how non-controversial they may have been under other Presidents, into the last stand against the fall of civilization.

  463. 463
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo: The fun thing about comments threads on blogs is that you are not able to control whether specific other commenters respond to you. As long as you persist in being a fucking asshole, I’ll make a point of engaging with you. Choosing to respond is up to you.

  464. 464
    tweedstereo says:

    @amk: Ahhh, cognitive dissonance! Good shot amk! Brevity is surely your strength, since it seems like you’ve got not much else to say unless it’s a pithy response to someone else on the board. Tell me, what two conflicting thoughts are in my mind? I’ll save you the trouble of the cheap retort – yes, my brain holds capacity for at least two thoughts simultaneously.

    Nevermind, it’ll probably be some predictably “sly” dig, probably recycled too. You seem boring behind the thin veneer of dickish you’ve installed.

  465. 465
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: And why is this not brought up EVERY time the Republicans abuse the filibuster? That’s basically the point I’m trying to get at, you’ve got to make your case and call out the other side explicitly AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN until that’s what people are mad about.

  466. 466
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: All else aside, thanks for pointing out substantive things to me. That’s leagues better than goofballs like amk. Have a good night.

  467. 467
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: hahahahaha
    i dont care if you post here.
    im just sayin’ that even having ABL force Cole to give you an FP post wont get you any respect.
    you cant lose your name tag as long you keep acting liek a Hall Monitor.

  468. 468
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo: Now THAT is actually an interesting question, and one which several writers have discussed. Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes discuss it all the time, and fault their media colleagues for how they report on Congressional votes.

    You do realize that we’re talking about a country in which the major networks almost never broadcast most of the President’s speeches, press conferences and public events live and in their entirety? And that even the cable news channels are loath to cut into their pundits’ gasbaggery to show us these live events, not even the “liberal” MSNBC? And that the White House press office puts out statements AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN that are not included in news programming?

    Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how exactly this is Obama’s fault.

  469. 469
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: “Being a fucking asshole?” That’s harsh. Didn’t know you are so easily provoked into being personally insulting.

    Good night rescinded!

    Hopefully your night stinks as much it probably does for someone who calls people fucking assholes on internet message boards!

  470. 470
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: I was not aware that ABL “forced” Cole to “give me a FP post.”

    When she cross-posted it, she was still fairly new here, so I assumed she cleared it with him. Perhaps you have insights into that chain of events that are unknown to me? What form did these threats take, exactly? Educate us.

    I was pleased that she did it, of course, and very proud that my post got the attention it did.

    I recall that there was another time when Cole posted a link here at BJ to a post of mine at ABLC, and I remember thanking him for that because it drove a lot of traffic to the site.

    I’m also proud that another of my posts at ABLC, about Clarence Thomas and Anthony Weiner, is among the most-viewed posts in ABLC history, because it was linked by Sully and other bigger fish.

    I’m certainly not as big a deal in the blogosphere as say, Erik Kain, but I do what I can, and some people are reading, and I am grateful for the readers I have.

  471. 471
    Samara Morgan says:

    @tweedstereo: if i can quote Blogmaster John Cole– “Allan, who the fuck do you think you are?”

    hahahahahahaha!

  472. 472
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo: Is this your first time at BJ? “Fucking asshole” is how we say good night around these parts. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

  473. 473
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: See, I’m not going to call you an asshole for assuming that I think it is all Obama’s fault that the media does not do its duty on reporting how perversely the filibuster is used by the Republicans, but obviously his messaging hasn’t boiled down to the point where THAT is actually a topic of discussion.
    Hell, hold a press conference where President Obama comes out to address legislation he supports and he simply states, “Until the minority party stops filibustering every piece of legislation proposed in Congress, they will not get anything done for the American people. Good night.” Whatever, I’m simply a naive deranged fucking asshole that isn’t as wise as you are and therefore should just STFU, right?

  474. 474
    tweedstereo says:

    @Allan: I feel better now. Haha, thanks Allan!

  475. 475
    Samara Morgan says:

    lol, oops.
    i might get in truble for that.
    ;)

  476. 476
    tweedstereo says:

    There’s clearly a reason I don’t get thick into comment sections on blogs but like once a month, I’m done. Later taters.

  477. 477
    tweedstereo says:

    @Samara Morgan: Yeesh, I’m fucking exhausted…it’s all good though. Hakuna matata and all that happy horse crap! G’night!

  478. 478
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Why, I’m just an asshole with an opinion, no different than you, or Cole, or any other commenter on this site or this very thread.

    I thought that was a silly question from Cole when he directed it at me, because there’s absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about my participation in this site, nor in my willingness to give the blog owner feedback about his site.

    Why, in DougJ’s latest, Cole makes a cameo to note that he gets about 50 emails a day from readers.

    I am so completely a totally typical BJ reader and commenter, that one can only speculate why I draw such special scorn from a few of BJ’s nastiest and most sociopathic bullies. Some attribute it to my sexual orientation, others to my role as a co-blogger at the hated ABL’s site, but I think it’s because I stand my ground, dig in my heels, and engage with my attackers until they tire of flinging their feces at me and move on.

  479. 479
    Allan says:

    @tweedstereo: You’re welcome, and I enjoyed the conversation.

  480. 480
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: You persist in the fantasy that anyone gives a shit what you post here. No. One. Cares. Most people have you pied.

  481. 481
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: and i truly do not care if you comment here Hall Monitor Allan.
    im not trying to “bully you” off the site.
    im just trying to guestimate how much i can post of my mail logs without gettin’ hit with the ban stick.
    ;)
    but im not gunna stop calling you Hall Monitor Allan either.
    its soooooo apropo.

  482. 482
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan:

    I thought that was a silly question from Cole when he directed it at me

    lol, he directed it at you because you are one of the rabid emailers, Hall Monitor Allan
    its Coles site. not yours.
    ;)

  483. 483
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: The seven BJ readers who don’t have you pied will certainly get a chuckle out of that.

    ABL tells me that you’re pretty and not visibly deranged or smeared with feces, or at least you cleaned up for a photo.

  484. 484
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Again, he gets 50 emails every day from readers.

    I emailed him back in 2008 the first time he took a public dump on me in the comments. I think I also emailed him about how jacked up the site was before he upgraded it. I emailed him about how awful you make the experience of reading the comments on his blog. And I emailed him to thank him for linking to a post of mine at ABLC. Rabid, indeed. Stalkerish, even.

  485. 485
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: lol, i dont give a shit about your sexual orientation and i think ABL is ice-cold.
    I do think you are an insufferable prig though, Hall Monitor Allan.
    And im not alone.
    ;)

  486. 486
    Allan says:

    @Samara Morgan: Still struggling with reading comprehension, I see. Go back and look at that comment and tell me where I asserted that you specifically hold any of those opinions.

    And while you’re at it, you should apologize for claiming that ABL forced Cole to let her FP my post when you have no evidence to support it.

  487. 487
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Allan: hahaha, its speculation, true….i got the feeling it was in the nature of an apology, because of the timing, and your ever petulant butthurt.

    and im sure you directed that comment at cornerstone more than me.
    but you are not very direct.
    so i thought i would be.

  488. 488
    William Hurley says:

    Well, as is your “right”, as you claim, you certainly did focus on the most irrelevant aspect of what is in every way the Defense rider to the Federal budget. Calling the legislation the House & Senate stitched together a “bill” unto itself is a gross violation of your all important admonition regarding the gravity of language.

    I wonder if the coming GOP President will be as “restrained” in applying these long used, now codified, detention prerogatives as judiciously as the GOP has used the right to filibuster. History suggests that that’s not likely seeing that even Barry was an ardent detainer even before Levin made black letter law of Barry’s Unitary Executive behavioral preferences.

    Thanks for clarifying which side in the war on civil liberties you support.

  489. 489

    @William Hurley:
    Just to be a bit of a prick about it, I am or have been on first name basis with a US Senator, a couple OR House/Senate Reps, OR Sec Treas, OR Gov, and other muckety mucks and used their first names on invitation and certainly not diminuatives. If you think that’s going to work as more than bile spilling, you’re misreading your audience.

    You might have something to say, but it is disqualified by your language right out of the gate. “Barry” is favored by a couple groups, PUMAs & GOPers come to mind; that who you’re trying to talk to?

  490. 490
    Norwonk says:

    ABL could have saved everyone a lot of time if she had shortened her post to: “It’s OK when Obama does it.”

  491. 491
    amk says:

    @tweedstereo: Why waste words with fools?

  492. 492
  493. 493
    Nada1 says:

    Sorry, I find Glenn Greenwald to be a credible and respectable journalist. Angry Black Lady—not so much.

  494. 494
    MomSense says:

    @John Cole

    Someone else may have pointed this out but I cannot read all of these comments.

    The President cannot veto a bill that received 86 votes in the Senate–something about that 2/3 that overrides a veto. He is in the same situation that he was when 96 Senators voted to deny funding (that power of the purse thing) to the transport of Guantanamo Detainees to federal prisons so that they could be tried in civilian courts.

    This is why people who are angry would do better to direct their ire at their Senators and Representatives.

  495. 495
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @MomSense

    You forgot there is also a House of Representatives.

    But that is beside the point. Even if there was a veto-proof majority in both the House and Senate, what would be the harm of Obama taking a principled stand against the draconian Bush era provisions in the current bill? A powerful stand would a) inform voters and b) force representatives to take ownership and defend their votes.

    Finally, one can both criticize Obama AND direct their ire at their representatives at the same time. It doesn’t have to be a choice between e two.

  496. 496
    doofus says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): This post is of course lost in the rain of Emo, but I too wonder about Levin’s reasoning in this.

  497. 497
    William Hurley says:

    @Nada1:

    Indeed.

  498. 498
    stinkfoot says:

    A powerful stand would a) inform voters and b) force representatives to take ownership and defend their votes.

    Finally, one can both criticize Obama AND direct their ire at their representatives at the same time. It doesn’t have to be a choice between e two.

    Yes and yes.

  499. 499
    William Hurley says:

    @Chuck Butcher:

    I’ll take your whiny retort, including the self-aggrandizing (fact-free) reference to your very important former employers, into consideration as soon as this forum and those beyond it adopt the proper level of genuflection you demand when referring to Hillary, Newt, Bill, Mitt and many other public figures who are also public servants.

    In the meantime, get over yourself.

  500. 500
    William Hurley says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    A central fact to the debate over Obama’s responsibility for the contents of this legislation is that the bill’s “shape” is a direct outcome of the President’s threats to veto prior versions of the bill because – as written – the bill limited Executive authority.

    There’s nothing in this bill that Obama did not want.

    Barry declared his objections in advance, using the veto threat, and the House & Senate responded by giving him what he demanded.

    As such, 80+ Senators know that in voting for this onerous expansion of the Unitary Executive’s power, they have cover of the President’s own words, his own demands to explain their actions.

    Understood any other way depicts the President as a hapless elected official who is not a leader, but is merely a functionary that endorses the functions of Congress. Is this the “President” o-bots think is worth re-electing?

    $1 billion is a large sum to waste on a loss.

  501. 501
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @William Hurley:

    I agree. Personally, I believe the evidence of the past three years points conclusively to Obama having an extreme view of executive power. My point about “taking a stand” was merely a way to combat the Cultist excuse making.

  502. 502
    Samara Morgan says:

    @William Hurley: better than the alternative, firebagger.
    and anyways, O cant lose to any of the current field of Republican Insane Clown Posse candidates.
    Its demographically and mathematically impossible.
    The GOP needs an impossible 65% of the white vote to beat O….it cannot be done.
    That billion is a damn good investment, imho….and pretty much risk free.
    ;)

  503. 503
    stinkdaddy says:

    “Am I against indefinite detention?”

    (big pause)

    “Against it? You know, I enjoy indefinitely detained people. I… I like to be around them. I, I… but no, I don’t support indefinite detention.”

    No, I’m not suggesting that people who’re feeling nice and nuanced about the question of whether the NDAA would still be such a ‘complicated’ issue under Bush are just as bad as Sandusky. I’m sure that would be the kind of thing they’d love, as they could explode in outrage rather than seeing the actual point: that they have just as much difficulty answering a simple yes or no question about something that most people (hopefully) don’t experience moral ambiguity over.

    @Samara Morgan: Yeah, I remember a lot of wise pontificating around here about how ’10 wasn’t going to be that bad either. If Romney gets the nomination, Obama’s in for a serious electoral fight for the first time since Chicago state politics. Tell yourself otherwise as you please.

  504. 504
    stinkdaddy says:

    @amk: You’re right: much better to actually be un-American than be called the same.

    Is there any principle that can’t be sold out in exchange for… still getting called mean names by the GOP regardless? Anything whatsoever? It’s been almost three years. That you folks are still able to bounce back and forth between “the GOP is relentlessly obstructionist and will do whatever it takes to defeat Obama at all costs” and “Obama should cater to the GOP on this, because playing ball will prevent them from attacking him” as is convenient at any given second in time.

    Do you hear yourselves? Three fucking years in and you’re still willing to pretend there’s anything whatsoever that Obama could do that would prevent, or even lessen, GOP attacks on him. Unreal.

  505. 505
    stinkdaddy says:

    @Allan: I love how you think you’re slick enough, having previously demanded editorial oversight over the comment section of this blog, to pull off this jiujitsu move of acting as though anyone who suggests that you go fuck yourself is actually demanding that you leave the site. Figure of speech- look it up. (Hint: “Go fuck yourself” doesn’t literally mean you should figure out a way to have sexual intercourse with yourself.)

    Yknow here’s what I’ve noticed. m_c acts like an annoying loon in comments, and won’t shut up about EDK despite him being gone for… six months? A year? More?

    Allan demands other posters with whom he disagrees be banned, suggests other posters with whom he disagrees kill themselves, makes catty comments about the appearance of bloggers he disagrees with whose pictures are available online, and pretends to know what other people he disagrees with – who haven’t posted their pictures – look like so he can denigrate their imaginary appearances as well.

    In other words? Congrats dude- you’ve made matoko look sane and reasonable by comparison.

  506. 506
    stinkdaddy says:

    @Allan: Really? See, personally I think it’s because you’re an insufferable hall monitor-turned-“Are you demanding that I leave?!”-victim who insults the appearance of and suggests suicide for people you disagree with. I GUESS WE’LL HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE.

  507. 507
    Xanthippas says:

    Nice. So during the Bush era every liberal blogger is an expert on the Patriot Act and national security law, and now during the Obama administration we get “language matters!”

    F this. I’ll check back in a few years.

  508. 508
    Corner Stone says:

    @Xanthippas:

    Nice. So during the Bush era every liberal blogger is an expert on the Patriot Act and national security law, and now during the Obama administration we get “language matters!”

    During the Bush Era the crit was righteous. Now, given that every fool and their brother is making the “status quo” argument, that same crit is completely beyond the pale.
    So let’s see, status quo 4 years ago equals Balls on Fire!
    Status quo now equals Pragmatism!

  509. 509
    Corner Stone says:

    Pragmatism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
    It’s a simple minded fool’s escape route for having to accept criticism of their guy.

  510. 510
    Corner Stone says:

    Lie #1. There is no such thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill”. To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama can veto this bill without killing the entire NDAA. He can’t.
    __
    Lie #2. Obama did not announce his intention to sign the “Indefinite Detention Bill” and for Greenwald to claim it’s “embedded” in the 2012 NDAA is an obfuscation, if not an outright falsehood, because it implies a possibility for him to veto just that “bill.”

    This may be the biggest double down on pure stupid I have ever seen here. And with Cole as an FP, that’s saying something.

  511. 511
    Samara Morgan says:

    @stinkdaddy: well…..it turns out i was right about Kain too.

    hahahaha!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Ten minutes later, predator drone strikes wiped out the ACLU offices in Washington and New York.[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Snowe and Collins mock your civil rights while…/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/SMCandOJS.jpg/300px-SMCandOJS.jpg" alt="Maine's two U.S. Senators, Susan […]

Comments are closed.