Is Obama hurting the Democratic Party by not joining forces with Hilla

[Lissa]

Source

If that was really McCain's stance he should really bone up on how things work. The CIA is not above the law.

This FAQ comment though shows that Congress doesn't tell them how they conduct business though Tal.

Specfically:

In the Executive Branch, the National Security Council—including the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense—provides guidance and direction for national foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities.

That says there that the CIA general activities are directed by the Executive branch.

In Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as other committees, closely monitor the Agency’s reporting and programs.

This sounds like more of the role of an auditor, someone that looks at what's going on and then reports that information to the person (people) that affect the policies.

And this last line pretty shows it's not Congress, that sets the policies;

The CIA is not a policy-making organization; it advises the Director of National Intelligence on matters of foreign intelligence, and it conducts covert actions only at the direction of the President or Director of National Intelligence.

It's pretty much the Executive branch that tells the CIA how to operate, Congress is the auditor of the activities and determines if the CIA is doing what it should be doing, but it is the Executive branch that must act on what Congress finds to affect policy change. So if the sitting President and their NSC decide that doing some things is fine, the only thing Congress can really do to affect change is to bring some of the information to light to the public and use force of public opinion to change the ways the President and the NSC are handling things (which is exactly what Congress has been doing and that's good).

I think that using distressing interrogation techniques is truly a waste of time when trying to gather information. Use of torture or torture like techniques will really only get the person you're interogating to tell you what they think you want to hear, but not give you all the informaiton. McCain probably has a similar attitude considering what he's gone through.

[Lissa]

It really doesn't matter what his personal feelings on the matter are. He is running for a political office, and if he thinks the government shouldn't be telling the CIA what they can and can't do, how is that functionally different from just letting them torture people?

-Jester

As I noted to Tal below, Congress' role is more of the auditor, they look at what is going on and then push to affect change from the President and the NSC. It is the NSC (which the President is a part of) that sets the policies. Congress in this case would audit what is going on and try to get the NSC to change policy on how things are done and when the NSC won't listen to Congress, Congress does what they have done, bring things to light to the public and use the public to sway the decision. Congress doesn't need to set the policy directly, they can set it indirectly through use of their audits to the NSC as well as the public if the NSC isn't willing to change policy.

[Griselda]

I just joined the Democratic party so that I could vote for Obama.:)

I've been registered Green, but voting with the democrats, for a long time. Obama's one of the first democrats that I would vote for other than grudgingly, though. I think one of the things about him is that he is bringing people either into the party or out to the polls who might otherwise not be out there supporting Clinton.

[Tal]

And this last line pretty shows it's not Congress, that sets the policies;
It's pretty much the Executive branch that tells the CIA how to operate, Congress is the auditor of the activities and determines if the CIA is doing what it should be doing, but it is the Executive branch that must act on what Congress finds to affect policy change. So if the sitting President and their NSC decide that doing some things is fine, the only thing Congress can really do to affect change is to bring some of the information to light to the public and use force of public opinion to change the ways the President and the NSC are handling things (which is exactly what Congress has been doing and that's good).

I'm confused. You point out the same information I pointed you to - and yet you still claim that Congress should not legislate the use of torture as an interrogation technique for any Federal Agency. Do you really think it should be left up to the Executive branch to determine the laws of the land?

[kandrathe]

Bah. He's supposedly a war hero, but I hear he spent most of the war holed up in a Hilton.

-V

He's had some incredible close calls and struggles in his life. Like the accident on the Forrestal where his plane was hit by an errantly mounted Zuni rocket and caught fire. While trying to save another pilot a 1000lb bomb exploded from his plane injuring him (and many others) with shrapnel to the chest and arms. But, he volunteered for duty on the USS Oriskany only to be shot down 3 months later over Vietnam. He suffered brutal torture by the North Vietnamese for five and 1/2 years which then after being returned to the states required extensive PT to help repair. But, he busted his hump and eventually took command of the air wing VA-174. Later as a Senator he was implicated, censored by the Senate and then later cleared of wrong doing with Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal.

[Lissa]

I'm confused. You point out the same information I pointed you to - and yet you still claim that Congress should not legislate the use of torture as an interrogation technique for any Federal Agency. Do you really think it should be left up to the Executive branch to determine the laws of the land?

The information shows that Congress is an auditor of what CIA does and the Executive Branch, specifically the NSC, is the one that sets policy. The bill that Congress worked one would set policy which is not what they're supposed to do with the CIA, that's the NSC. What Congress really did with this bill is get the public to put pressure on the NSC to affect change on how CIA policy to be against torture (a good thing as torture serves no useful purpose for gaining accurate information).

[Tal]

The information shows that Congress is an auditor of what CIA does and the Executive Branch, specifically the NSC, is the one that sets policy. The bill that Congress worked one would set policy which is not what they're supposed to do with the CIA, that's the NSC. What Congress really did with this bill is get the public to put pressure on the NSC to affect change on how CIA policy to be against torture (a good thing as torture serves no useful purpose for gaining accurate information).

You've missed my point.:(

[Ashock]

I think it's interesting how the conservatives are trying to find the proper mud to fling at him. Here at our non-partisan lounge, Occhi has labeled him a "crook" and wondered if he "has a spine", now we have a post that he's P.T. Barnum "on his white side". What label is going to stick, and be used all summer long?? We'll see.

How about crook on white and racist on black.

As far as the speech.... the point is that he was making it in Selma, and was trying to present himself as one of them, tailoring his speech to suit his purposes. He is not one of them.

Anyway, I love the people who are endorsing him. You can find out a lot about a person by knowing who his friends are.

[Vandiablo]

How about crook on white and racist on black.

Yep, concise labels that distort the truth. Can't escape them. Repeat them ad nauseum and cast everything in their shadow until the candidate is nothing more than a cartoon character. From the other side, the tactics look like a conservative Code Pink.

As far as the speech.... the point is that he was making it in Selma, and was trying to present himself as one of them, tailoring his speech to suit his purposes. He is not one of them.

He's not ein Berliner either!

I see "the point" -- but to those of us who see the struggle for civil rights as a step forward, and who remember firsthand the level of racism in those days, linking mixed-race parents in the early 60's to the march of Selma is not a stretch. It is no "gotcha", sorry.

Anyway, I love the people who are endorsing him. You can find out a lot about a person by knowing who his friends are.

Like Griselda and King Jim?? I love them too!

[Ashock]

Like Griselda and King Jim?? I love them too!

Or like Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, the New Black Panthers, Lewis Farrakhan and Daniel Ortega. And this is even before Obama won the nomination. Wait till all the others that will come out if he does win it. Well-meaning but naive people often go hand in hand with those who are pretty bad but shrewd mofo's. The American commie party members in the 30s and their blind belief in the honorable Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin come to mind right away at least for me. And yeh, I can call them commies or whatever else I want. But I digress.....

Anyway, when I said: "You can find out a lot about a person by knowing who his friends are", I was talking about Obama's personal friends, not voters who are people he does not know personally. While I do not know if he is friends with Ortega, I'm pretty sure that he is well acquainted with Farrakhan and the Kitties and of course we all know about Jeremiah Wright, and his serene views on anything that is not black.

[Jester]

While I do not know if he is friends with Ortega, I'm pretty sure that he is well acquainted with Farrakhan and the Kitties and of course we all know about Jeremiah Wright, and his serene views on anything that is not black.

By "you do not know if", I presume you mean something like "there isn't a shred of evidence that"? It's not exactly shrouded in mystery. Has he even met the man? I also can't find any evidence of direct contact between Obama and either Louis Farrakhan or the Black Panthers, let alone that they are "personal friends."

So, that would leave Rev. Wright. I'm not altogether happy with many of the things he's said, but he's hardly Danny Ortega or Louis Farrakhan.

-Jester

[roguebanshee]

While I do not know if he is friends with Ortega, I'm pretty sure that he is well acquainted with Farrakhan and the Kitties

Some people are pretty sure that UFOs visit them at night. I'm going to consider your statements belonging to the same category until you bring proof.

[Quark]

"You can find out a lot about a person by knowing who his friends are", I was talking about Obama's personal friends, not voters who are people he does not know personally.

To throw this tripe back in your face ... so like McCain and Bush? McCain and his lobbyists? How about Clinton and the Family?

That last one is pretty interesting, and points to an overlooked article here. Here's the scariest line I took from that article:

Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection.

If you don't know why that line is scary, you don't know enough about Santorum.

[Ashock]

Some people are pretty sure that UFOs visit them at night. I'm going to consider your statements belonging to the same category until you bring proof.

I see you conveniently omitted Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright and his beautiful views on the world, AND the fact his closeness to Obama is irrefutable. Just he alone is enough.

Would you vote for a white candidate who is that close to a white supremacist or a KKK leader or even member? Would a black person vote for that guy? Heh. I'd say that if let's say a white candidate with similar views only from the other side emerged, he would be gone within 2 days as a viable Presidential candidate and the press would utterly destroy him within that time. Just because Obama is black or half-black, does not make him less responsible for his views or friends. But then again, in today's world, in this country with so much bleeding heart liberalism, with so much white guilt and with so little common sense.... I guess it does.

[Chesspiece_face]

I see you conveniently omitted Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright and his beautiful views on the world, AND the fact his closeness to Obama is irrefutable. Just he alone is enough.

Would you vote for a white candidate who is that close to a white supremacist or a KKK leader or even member? Would a black person vote for that guy? Heh. I'd say that if let's say a white candidate with similar views only from the other side emerged, he would be gone within 2 days as a viable Presidential candidate and the press would utterly destroy him within that time. Just because Obama is black or half-black, does not make him less responsible for his views or friends. But then again, in today's world, in this country with so much bleeding heart liberalism, with so much white guilt and with so little common sense.... I guess it does.

funny then that mccain is still the republican nominee despite his connection to numerous religious figures such as Robertson and Falwell who believe that 911 happened because of liberals, gays, feminists and the like and also that Katrina happened as part of gods wrath against america because of the same individuals.

Oh and there is also the fact that he had a preacher open one of his speeches with overt racist and xenophobic remarks.

yeah, i guess you are right. A white candidate with connections to such loony people would never make it in a presidential campaign.

[Jester]

I see you conveniently omitted Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright and his beautiful views on the world, AND the fact his closeness to Obama is irrefutable. Just he alone is enough.

Would you vote for a white candidate who is that close to a white supremacist or a KKK leader or even member? Would a black person vote for that guy? Heh. I'd say that if let's say a white candidate with similar views only from the other side emerged, he would be gone within 2 days as a viable Presidential candidate and the press would utterly destroy him within that time. Just because Obama is black or half-black, does not make him less responsible for his views or friends. But then again, in today's world, in this country with so much bleeding heart liberalism, with so much white guilt and with so little common sense.... I guess it does.

Rev. Wright believes some things that are looney tunes, and he certainly isn't quiet about expressing those beliefs, but he is not a Black Supremacist, and he is certainly not the equivalent of the Klan. Let's have some perspective, please. This man has said some angry things about America, its foreign policy, and about the relative situation of blacks and whites in America. He has not hung white people from trees or put burning crosses on their lawns.

-Jester

[Nystul]

Rev. Wright believes some things that are looney tunes, and he certainly isn't quiet about expressing those beliefs, but he is not a Black Supremacist, and he is certainly not the equivalent of the Klan. Let's have some perspective, please. This man has said some angry things about America, its foreign policy, and about the relative situation of blacks and whites in America. He has not hung white people from trees or put burning crosses on their lawns.

-Jester

Does the 21st century Klansman really hang people from trees and burn crosses on their lawns? I thought they were a little more clever than that.

[Quark]

Let's have some perspective, please.

They don't need perspective as long as they have their soundbites.

[kandrathe]

Rev. Wright believes some things that are looney tunes, and he certainly isn't quiet about expressing those beliefs, but he is not a Black Supremacist, and he is certainly not the equivalent of the Klan. Let's have some perspective, please. This man has said some angry things about America, its foreign policy, and about the relative situation of blacks and whites in America. He has not hung white people from trees or put burning crosses on their lawns.

-Jester

What does Obama say about his pastor and mentor of 20 years?

"On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy and in some cases pain For some, nagging questions remain.
Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all."

*bolded by me for emphasis

The question I have Jester, is that like other bigots, does this inflame his constituency to the point of action beyond political action? Just as a bigoted white speaker might not actually hang people or burn crosses in their yards, does his hate speech fill the listener with a wrong headed sense of righteous anger that justifies retribution? The tools of this kind of retribution are not the noose and the cross, but the Glock and a drive by.

So the question is valid, even if the examples cited before are not. Substitute flagrant bigotry for overt racism and we are comparing apples to apples.

Blaming rich white people for intentionally designing and spreading the AIDS epidemic is beyond a commentary on American Foreign Policy. It is divisive and more inflammatory than blaming the AIDS epidemic on gay sex. I could go on with numerous other examples of how his twisted words may have led his flock to take violent action, such as that which was promoted by Farrakhan, Nation of Islam and other black militants. Jeremiah Wright, and Farrakhan also share more than a political animosity against Israel, they express true antisemitism in its ugliest forms.

Nobody, least of all Wright, would ever mention the full text of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech of Aug. 28, 1963... "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!' "

[Jester]

The question I have Jester, is that like other bigots, does this inflame his constituency to the point of action beyond political action?

No. Give me a single example of one of his "flock" doing anything of the sort.

The tools of this kind of retribution are not the noose and the cross, but the Glock and a drive by.

The shortest line that connects Barack Obama to a "Glock and a drive by" is long indeed. This is pure fantasy, guilt by association meets six degrees of separation.

Blaming rich white people for intentionally designing and spreading the AIDS epidemic is beyond a commentary on American Foreign Policy. It is divisive and more inflammatory than blaming the AIDS epidemic on gay sex.

I believe I called it "looney tunes." He's completely off base on AIDS. Obama realises this, and has denounced those comments.

I could go on with numerous other examples of how his twisted words may have led his flock to take violent action, such as that which was promoted by Farrakhan, Nation of Islam and other black militants. Jeremiah Wright, and Farrakhan also share more than a political animosity against Israel, they express true antisemitism in its ugliest forms.

The anti-defamation league has said Rev. Wright is clear of anti-semitism. As for Farrakhan, Obama has no association with the man, has denounced his anti-semitic comments, and rejected his endorsement. Again, if you have any examples at all of how Wright's "twisted words" have led "his flock to take violent actions," I'd love to hear them.

Also, "true antisemitism in its ugliest form" would probably be the holocaust. Some perspective please, I know hyperbole can be fun when you're tarring people, but occasionally it ventures into the ridiculous.

Nobody, least of all Wright, would ever mention the full text of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech of Aug. 28, 1963... "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!' "

Are you serious? That's the most quoted speech about tolerance in the universe. "Nobody" would quote that? I wouldn't be surprised if Rev. Wright knew it by heart. From the sound of his rhetoric, nobody would be happier if black and white, jew and gentile, protestant and catholic were all free and equal. He just sees that as a long way away because of oppression.

It is his profound anger that he and his get the short end of the stick that leads him to many of his opinions, both the reasonable ones and the stupid ones. He sees a racial divide enforced by power, and sees himself as fighting against that in the name of God and his community. I'm sure to him believing AIDS is a government conspiracy and that Farrakhan is a great guy are all a part of that fight.

-Jester