General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I am noticing a lot of full-blown denial over Obama calling torturers "patriots" on DU. [View all]TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Firstly, most of us heard it at the time it was clear as a bell in the moment and continues to be.
The President is clearly rationalizing and attempting to explain why such things might happen and he is clearly stating that he believes that some of the folks that stooped to torture were patriots acting under tremendous pressure in the shadows of the Fallen towers at the smoldering Pentagon.
Essentially, saying that things got well out of hand but we shouldn't be sanctimonious towards these well intentioned and decent folks in the worst situation doing a devilishly difficult job just because they all didn't come out aces and roses because who knows how they would truly fare in the heat of the moments, there has never been a time when heroes were not a premium.
I think what he actually conveyed is a hell of a lot more defensible and real than this wild eyed re - imagining of the speech, I would hold with it, I would vehemently argue that values aren't for easy moments, I'd still have a visceral reaction to the logic but it would be relatable and real.
I also think that most people that happen to see and somehow hear it that way also took it pretty much just like that but now even the triple filtered, diluted, and redacted report is still too nasty to fight on that hill so it is on to the Ministry of Truth type tactics to stave off the cognitive dissonance.
You've parsed out a nonexistent and contextually silly tangent out of this statement in order to allow yourself to swallow what went down and what still is going down by covering, wiping, and dangling for the monsters who did these dark age style acts in our names and that isn't even the bad part.
The bad part is the whole thing is an effort to avoid actually having to even honestly process the shit that went down and the covering and defending that is the current course.
That ground is also less fertile for scoring points in the arguing war game, I guess twisted and tortured comprehension of a plain statement requiring the very odd, brief, and bizarre tangent of
A) Weirdly taking time out to admonish people for somehow lumping in the unsanctioned, still employed or free to lie and gnaw his ass level of not in trouble bad guys with the people living our values, some maybe resigning and losing a career, a livelihood, pensions perhaps and probably living in fear of twisted, evil fucks sending a little of their famous retribution their way or toward their families. Clearly most wouldn't be in the loop at all. This is a nation deeply challenged to look at anything on a systematic level, you can't get people off the few bad apples adage enough to even see problems but this time with military and security personnel of all groups bring this as an immediate concern? Preposterous at best.
There is no crisis of delineation of torturers and people that had nothing to do with it to be making a quick point on it during an admission of crimes against humanity. That whole thing makes no sense in context especially. The most reasonable reading is that some that tortured were "patriots", winners of medals and commendations, holders of the highest offices and ranks. There might be one or two that pulled their platoons out of harms way or some such.
B) That Obama thinks sanctimonious means lumping people together unfairly or that the levels of sanctimony will be so epic in their scope that he must get in front of the rampaging mob sure to blame the data entry clerk at the local FBI office for torture.
is a better hill to die on than the give the monsters a pass lump of shit in the bottom of of a gully somewhere.