In the wake of the torture, pictures, military tribunal fracas, yet more proof that the grand old “liberal media” is much more interested in conflict drama than, you know, reporting and yet more proof that we can’t count on them to help protect the rule of law.
The Associated Press “anaylsis” of the situation paints it as a potential loss for the Democratic Party…but not because Democrats won’t investigate or prosecute, but because they actually might;
Increasingly, President Barack Obama and Democrats who run Congress are being pulled between the competing interests of party liberals and the rest of the country on Bush-era wartime matters of torture, detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists.
Yes, as it turns out, the rule of law and human rights are merely “interests of party liberals.” More so, the Associated Press decided to crown Nancy Pelosi as Queen of the left flank?;
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi protected the party’s left flank by accusing the CIA of lying to her about the agency’s use of a form of simulated drowning on suspected terrorists. “We were told that waterboarding was not being used,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “And we now know that earlier they were.” The CIA disputes Pelosi’s account.
I wasn’t aware she was protecting us? Funny, since some liberal blogs like DailyKos have been more than happy to throw her to the wolves on this. It gets better;
The White House desperately wants to get Democrats in Congress focused on the president’s priorities. Obama’s team has made it clear it’s not eager to retread the past. But House and Senate liberals, prodded by a vocal and active network of grass-roots and “netroots” supporters, relish doing just that, seemingly fixated on how Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney handled Iraq and terrorism.
So you heard it, those of you who want investigations, prosecutions, punishment for egregious human rights violations are merely “fixated” on the past.
Obama is facing the same predicament that confronted and confounded other recent Democratic presidents. While governing as centrists, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter bent over backward on issues of war and peace, working to appease the party’s left wing without being held hostage by it.
Defeated Democratic nominees – John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, Michael Dukakis in 1988 – lost in part because Republicans successfully tagged them as soft on security.
The battle lines are drawn. “appeasing” liberals is bad and dangerous.
Conversely, Obama may have further endeared himself to moderates and independents who are more hawkish on national security and are important to his winning coalition. It’s also possible that conservative Republicans may now be more open to dealing with him because of his moves on security issues.
With those actions, Obama may have undercut Cheney’s complaint that the Democrat’s policies were endangering the country. The president also may have insulated himself from further weak-on-security attacks following a campaign during which skeptics questioned his readiness to lead the military in wartime.
Ah, so all those things liberals are criticizing him for are actually making him more popular with the rest of the country.
So to sum it up, Obama risks turning into Carter and Clinton if he appeases liberals, so in order for him to survive, he has to appear “hawkish”, sweep torture and war crimes under the rug, and somehow shut the liberals up on this issue.
The sad thing is…this anaylsis may actually be right and we know it. I was struck by this comment I saw in a thread at OpenLeft;
you know what the sad thing is? (0.00 / 0)
If the economy recovers, Obama will be able to cruise to reelection despite continuing destructive, unconstitutional policies such as military commissions. Hell, if the economy recovers, Obama could openly come out for torture and still cruise to reelection.
That’s how detached from reality we are. Bread and circuses, that’s all we need.
It’s us versus the rest of the country…it’s clear that the country voted for ecnonomic and social change, but national security? not so much…and the media, formed to protect our Constitution and human rights, have decided that our rights are “interests of the left”