We have seen in the Republican primary how candidates have engaged in a type of race to the bottom in embracing torture and suggesting that they would launch attacks against Iran and other countries. In this debate, the law and the Constitution are often dismissed as weak considerations for a strong president. Not to be outdone in such macho posturing, the Obama campaign has mocked Mitt Romney for even suggesting that he would consult with lawyers before launching attacks or taking critical actions. Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, delivered the message on MSNBC that Obama was strong because he didn’t need no stinkin’ lawyers.
Cutter appeared on MSNBC to offer this analysis of Romney:
The most egregious falsehood would be the President’s position on Iran, whether it’s Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, attacking the President for not being tough enough on Iran. Ask any foreign policy expert out there, we have the toughest sanctions in place today than we’ve had in decades thanks to this President. . . . Now look at Mitt Romney. What he didn’t say on the stage tonight is that just four years ago, when asked the same question on Iran, he said he’d have to check with his lawyers. That does not make a Commander-in-Chief, somebody who has to check with his lawyers.
Of course, Obama has shown repeatedly that he has the “strength” to not only ignore lawyers, but ignore the law. On torture, he promised CIA officials that they would never be prosecuted despite his acknowledgment that waterboarding is torture — a war crime under controlling treaties. On Libya, he launched a war without achieving authorization from Congress. [For full disclosure, I represented the members challenging this war in federal court]. For areas ranging from privacy to detention, Obama has proven the type of strong leadership that Cutter describes. Her comments vividly illustrate that the White House has little concern for the objections by civil libertarians and will continue to model Obama on the image of George Bush — the strong leader who refuses to be weakened by lawyers.
Cutter’s comments should be condemned by the President but they will not be. It was not even challenged on MSNBC at the time or in later segments. After all, this election is only about “them” and not “us.” Moreover Cutter was reading from a script that has been followed since the very beginning of Obama’s term. The image of the strongman, so popular in places like Russia, has found a place in the United States. In this new paradigm, the law and the Constitution are synonymous with weakness. Even consulting with lawyers is an indication of a lack of character and strength.
By the way, Cutter is a lawyer (trained at Georgetown).
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece on the comments.
Jim sez: “MESPO Your problem is you wouldn’t know the truth even if it hit you in the face.”
***********************************
Interesting question Jim. Just what is the “truth.” Keep in mind that several of us here are scientifically trained. That means we believe in proofs, repeatability of findings, baseline data, statistical means and standard deviations.
Just what it the “truth,” Jim old boy? Show us the truth in some provable form other than, “This is what I believe and therefore so should you.”
In other words, just answer Mespo’s damn questions. We await breathlessly.
If you don’t listen to Jim, I could agree. But so far, all I see is sock puppet hell. Many different views on building the tower of babel.
Thanks Jim for proving what I knew all along: You’re hopelessly closed-minded, intellectually cowardly, and no amount of proof could dissuade you from your beliefs. Your reply is nonsensical since you already have a world view — albeit a Christian one – but don’t recognize it as such or maybe don’t know the meaning of the term. No matter. You are a willfully ignorant man and, of course, unworthy of any more time from folks who use cerebral cortices for more than hatracks.
MESPO,
Again you don’t see strait or are just blind.
MESPO
You said yesterday: What proof would it take to change your mind? I am happy to tell you my criteria for accepting your world view if you tell me yours for rejecting it.
I challenge you.
Well, I answered you
I am in Sock Puppet Heaven!!
What do you think the clowns families think of them? It saves money going to the circus, they have a carnival at home. Just look at the freak show commence.
Mespo
I answered your challenge above. But here it is again.
Jim
1, February 24, 2012 at 6:08 pm
MESPO,
Why would I accept the world view? The Bible says to come ye out of the world and be separate and that strait and narrow is the way to heaven. Never would I accept a world view.
I agree Jessie
Jim,
How can they disprove what they have never read. I bet they ate their young. They want government handouts and subsidies. The government should be run like a business and cut the waste. If the post office or amtrac were private businesses wouldn’t the taxpayers complain about the perpetual bailouts. A total waste of economic resources.
Jessie from MN:
“They just don’t understand you, do they?”
******************
I think Jim’s problem with us (and hence his very un-Christian remarks in reply) show that he knows we understand him and those theocrats like him all too well. It’s endlessly frustrating for the deluded to be forced to prove their position without resort to circular reasoning, appeals to authority, or just plain old “come on guys, I’m right can’t you see.” It leads to insults of your skeptics like we can’t read or are blind. I’m fully prepared to accept that one side can’t read or see the truth; our disagreement is just which side. I offered Jim the challenge to state to me his criteria for disproving what he claims he knows. I offered to tell him my criteria for disproving the way I feel. Jim ran like a schoolgirl from the challenge because he knows that he can’t rationally examine his beliefs. Since the time of Socrates that has been the test of life’s value and ol’ Jim doesn’t want to sit for that exam. He’s a tool — in anyone hands with a collar and that makes him dangerous to free people in a democracy.
The truth can never die, that is why.
Jessie from Minnesota
Paul is ok but statistics are pretty convincing that he can’t win a general election. I don’t want him to pull a Perot. After all, that is how Clinton got elected.
Jim,
You do know Ron Paul is ahead of Obama in Arizona. Who would have thought.
Jessie,
Quoting Glenn Beck is hilarious!
MESPO
Your problem is you wouldn’t know the truth even if it hit you in the face.
Jessie, Why are you having a rally? The caucuses are over you know. Santorum won.
Jessie from Minnesota
That is right. Idiots they are!
then again:
All they need to read is Glen Becks’ “arguing with idiots”, enough said.