So, what *is* the centrist take on "torturers were patriots, critics are sanctimonious"?

[redgreenandblue]

How is this not clearly something which warrants some "criticism from the left"?

[leftstreet]

1. Compromise, Reach across the Aisle, Pragmatism, Popcorn

DURec

[Maedhros]

2. "Centrist" is chimaeric.

The "Centrist" response to pretty much any incident is to maintain the status quo, i.e. it is the Conservative response.

[riqster]

3. It's a load of horseshit. I am a centrist.

My take on the statement is that it's horseshit. Obama should be arresting and charging those motherfuckers, starting with Bush and working his way down.

And the centrist-bashing is horse-shit too. The DLC does not speak for me, and it never has. And I'm not a fucking conservative, either.

Such ignorant, ill-informed, gratuitous trash-talk shrinks the tent, when we can least afford it.

[hedda_foil]

5. In your own terms, you're a centrist but not in "Centrist" terms.

Centrist doesn't mean.moderate, as your post indicates you are. It's best reflected in the DLC, Third Way, and No Labels leaders. (They're all interchangeable.) These folks primarily protect corporatist/Wall Street/billionaire interests not the interests of real.people. They tend to be financed by Koch Brothers and their ilk. They've presented themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but they never let on what that means. It's NOT the same thing as being a moderate Democrat who believes the government should avoid reckless spending while acting in the best interests of the middle class. (which is how the"Centrist" politicians and their lapdog media describe their policies.) How do you describe your political positions?

[riqster]

8. I'll answer the complex question positions later...

Because I have a big day of lawn work and such, and want to start before it gets too hot.

I understand that people have taken the "centrist" and turned it into an insult these past years, but I have used it since the '70's, when it meant sensible, incremental, and community-oriented, opposed to violent extremism. Damned if I will reclassify myself just to appease a load of revisionists.

But then, I don't call post-Ford Conservatives by that label, since they are in fact crazy-assed revolutionaries, which is antithetical to conservatism, and I never once referred to Bush the Lesser as "president", since he was never legitimately elected to the office.

Words have power, emotionally and otherwise. I emphatically reject any revolution of choice, and always have. I favor incremental change, because that has been proven to be best in the long run.

Perhaps you might think of me as a centrist in terms of method? Because politically I not a moderate: but remember that moderate and centrist are not synonymous.

[hedda_foil]

11. I hear you. I even agree with you.

But language continually evolves. Sometimes it's pushed to redefine words by propaganda. Sometimes, as in the meaning of the word "centrist," there's an elite (or hidden) meaning that differs substantially from the word or phrase as commonly used. The elite pols and propagandists exploit that difference to say one thing that sounds perfectly reasonable to the lumpen proletariat, while meaning something very different, that the common folk would never support. Eventually, some people figure it out and say that the emperor has no clothes. That's the stage we're at now.

[el_bryanto]

4. OK - Obama is clearly going to let everybody in the chain of command off the hook

But one "centrist" position could be to blame the people who ordered and approved the torturing and not the troops who were carrying it out. You would have to determine how far down the ladder to go in your prosecutions - do you hold those who committed the torture responsible? What about those who were acting as guards or the like? There's an argument to be made that focusing on the people at the top is the most productive.

But there's also an argument to be made that rooting out everybody involved is necessary to really punish the people responsible.

Bryant

[msanthrope]

6. Well, this centrist has a take on your use of quotation marks. Since you are using them, would

you kindly link to the citation of the person who said that exact quote?

[redgreenandblue]

7. ...

“I understand why it happened,” he said. “People did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law-enforcement and our national security teams” to prevent any follow-on strikes.

“It’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had,” Obama said.

“A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots. But having said all that we did some things that were wrong,” he said. “And that’s what that report reflects.”

In short: "Torturers were patriots, critics are sanctimonious."

[msanthrope]

9. So, you are using quotation marks incorrectly, then? And I agree with

President Obama....on his statement in full. Torture is wrong.

[conservaphobe]

10. It's not that high on my priority list.

My life has been improved by this administration and other Democratic administrations.

As a voter, that's what I care about.

[woo me with science]

12. Torturers are patriots. Critics of torture are "sanctimonious."

A dark day in America, when those words come out of the mouth of an American president.

[maxrandb]

13. It's not as simple as that

I wouldn’t call myself a “centrist”, I’m more of a full-on “bleeding heart liberal”, but I understand why people lost their humanity and tortured people that we believed were out to destroy our country.

Please see that I said; “I understand”, not that I “condone”.

We all like to think that, were we faced with something like this, we would do the “right” thing. However, that is a bit of sanctimonious thinking. The truth is that most people, perhaps the vast majority of people, have absolutely no clue how they would respond to a crisis.

I’m a peaceful person, despite my 29.5 years in the Navy…but, if someone were attacking my family, I think that I would do whatever it took…even things I could never imagine myself doing, to protect them.

And let’s not forget, people we elected, appointed judges, lawyers, and hell…50+% of our Congress gave a “green light” to “enhanced interrogation”.

I think it’s absolutely remarkable that a President would even come out and “admit” that we had tortured people. That in itself, is a win for humanity.

So now, what do we do with those people? Do we prosecute the President, Vice President and Attorney General at the time? Would the country stand for that? Would a jury even convict them? And….at the same time, would we have to prosecute ourselves? We elected these people. Don’t we share some of the blame?

And, if you’re not going to prosecute the leaders who ordered it, or the country that condoned it…how do you prosecute the underlings who carried it out?

See, to me, it’s not as simple as…if you don’t prosecute this, you’re criminal..or…if you speak against it…you’re sanctimonious.
Our country failed miserably. Learn from it. Admit it. Help ensure it never happens again, BUT DON’T BLAME PRESIDENT OBAMA because he finally admitted our wrong-doing.

Let’s do a better job of electing leaders that won’t appoint people who think torture is EVER justified.