Carrol wrote: > Then the Liberal Hope, Obama says he will protect > the murderers and torturers and other willing thugs > in the CIA, as well as those in high places) against > being held responsible for their crimes against > humanity.
I missed this in the news. Please cite. > A writer dares to suggest that perhaps the > u.s. ought to pretend at least to be a decent nation, > and that it is Obama's responsibility to uphold some > minimal standards of decency. Which one? Kristol? He's a neo-con. He is in favor of using torture. Or do you mean Dawn Johnsen? She was picked by Obama to a top post in the Justice Department. > And some person who dares to call himself a > "progressive" and argue what "progressives" should > do, announces to Pen-L that of course is > acceptable. He is cowardly, and hides that approval > of torture under the mask of rhetorical criticism > (Blah Blah). It has become blah blah now to speak up > for humand ecency. So be it. Carrol, You are mistaking me for someone else. I'm the author of all those terrible offensive "blah blahs." But read again: I directed the "blah blah" to a neo-con, William Kristol, who is in the record arguing for the invasion on Iraq, torture, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. He now writes for the New York Times. As horrible as the liberal (or conservative, according to Doug) Obama may be, for all we know and can safely infer from public information, Kristol is nowhere near him politically or -- I believe -- ideologically. Again, Kristol supported McCain, advocated for the invasion of Iraq, still defends Bush, defended torture, and is now in the business of mocking Obama -- something that appears to be turning him into a valuable source of information and insight to people like Louis Proyect, who forwarded the article to the list. So, I repeat, the article of this neo-con was sent to the list by Louis Proyect, because -- I imagine -- makes Obama look bad. However, Kristol -- the unrepentant neo-con channelled by the "unrepetant Marxist" -- does not argue in favor of minimal standards of decency. No, Sir. He's been arguing and I expect him to continue to argue in favor of lower and lower standards of decency. At this point, I have no reason to disrespect Dawn Johnsen, who has argued *against* the legal justification for torture and other neo-con practices. *I* was the one who sent the link to Johnsen's blog posts. Hope this makes things clear. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
