There's Hope, And Then There's Clapping For Fairies

By Steve Hynd

We're about to read a heck of a lot of bloody stupidity based around the Obama administration's message control and the tame complicity of the MSM in passing on that message.

The NYT's headline reads: "Obama Open to Prosecutions in Interrogation Abuses" and you can read variations on the theme as originally written and syndicated by AP's Jennifer Loven all over the place, from CBS to the Boston Globe to Truthdig. (h/t Kat)

The whole story comes down to Obama saying it's up to Eric Holder, should the latter decide to buck his President's wishes:

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Mr. Obama said.

But later we get:

The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Mr. Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."

That last part is perfectly in accordance with what Rahm Emmanuel (belated spindoctors to the contrary) plainly said just the other day, as well as Robert Gibb's telling statement yesterday in answer to a question about why Bush administration lawyers are not being held accountable. "The president is focused on looking forward. That’s why". All these statements have one thing in common, as Norman Geras puts it: "it's like water off a duck's back - as if the politics were everything and law and morality of no account."

I know Holder is technically independent but let's get real. To believe these new headlines you'd have to believe that Holder will go against the clearly and repeatedly stated wishes of his boss, the guy who hired him and can fire him at will. To believe that would go beyond Hope (tm) into the realm of "clapping for fairies".

But I'm wondering at what point Obama's twisting on such a clear cut issue will backlash for him with progressives who have until now been prepared to cut him far too much slack - Hope (tm) again - on other issues. If he's so wrong on this, perhaps being led by the Establishment elite who really do think they are privileged (privi lege = "private law"), maybe we need to look long and hard at what else he might be wrong on. Topics that spring to mind include healthcare, warrantless surveillance, bailouts for Fat Cats and especially his escalation of Bush's failed occupation in Afghanistan. Maybe if we re-examine all of those without a heavy dose of "clapping for fairies", we'll discover we don't really much support the policies of a President who encouraged us to invest so much Hope (tm) in him.

Comments

[Ron Beasley]

If the administration does do anything it will be because they have a gun to their collective heads. If Spain acts that's one gun, a House/Senate investigation would be another. Without one or both of those all the progressive outrage will be ineffective.

[Dave Schuler]

But I'm wondering at what point Obama's twisting on such a clear cut issue will backlash for him with progressives who have until now been prepared to cut him far too much slack

As long as they don't have an alternative which, basically, is forever.

[empty]

The "progressive" movement that brought Obama to power was about the person - not about any particular policies. If it had been about policies then Obama's discarding of the liberal position on all these issues would have invited a backlash. As it stands the "progressives" need a counter-Obama to rally around - another personality cult to replace the one gone sour - which as Dave Schuler says means that Obama is going to suffer from a backlash as soon as forever arrives.

[Batocchio]

"I know Holder is technically independent but let's get real."

This is the key. Bring on Spain, and American public pressure.

[Kat]

With regard to Glenn's piece, I wonder if attorneys will now be able to more effectively argue 'equal protection' as a defense.

If the law doesn't apply to elites 'because we need to look forward', shouldn't that be the case for all criminals?

[GreenDreams]

Not sure who here presumes to speak for "progressives" but speaking for myself, as an ardent supporter of Pres Obama, I am not complacent about this issue at all and do not need an Obama opponent to rally behind. I expect him to do the right thing and along with millions of other Democrats, will hold his feet to the fire --oh, bad analogy I guess-- in ways "the right" never did with the Bushies. They're still defending the worst abuses. Not so "the left".