A bit of help requested from broadband users, please.

[redneckgaijin]

Could someone, or more than one, check this article, and the video to which it links?

Mainly, what I'm looking for is some verification of the article's statement: that, under interview with Chris Matthews, David Axelrod deliberately avoided giving a direct answer to the question: is Obama reserving the right to torture in the future?

Granted, Dick Cheney made that claim in his speech, which was virtually all lies. However, I seem to recall in the executive order banning torture that the CIA could make personal application to Obama for authorization of any interrogation technique not approved of under military regs- or, put another way, that the CIA could ask, and receive, Obama's go-ahead to resume torture in special cases.

Personally, I don't have much hope for Chris Matthews here; as this article shows, Matthews himself has no fixed moral compass. He's so interested in political infighting that he's incapable of seeing things in any other light.

But if it's true, it would only reinforce things I've said here before- to the exasperation of quite a few of you. Indeed, considering the above, and considering the quotes I'm about to make from this Newsweek article, in my mind impeaching Obama is becoming less a tactic to achieve prosecution of Bush and his cronies, and more a necessity in its own right...

The exchange came during an hour-and-15-minute "off the record" session in the White House cabinet room that highlighted growing tensions between the president and his liberal base. While the White House session was billed as an effort by the president to listen to his critics on the left, some of them left disappointed.

. . .

According to three sources who attended the meeting, Obama reiterated his intention to retain a version of the military-tribunal system established to try terror detainees and said his administration will likely end up adopting some form of "indefinite detention" policy to justify holding some selected suspects without trial.

. . .

"It doesn't help to equate me to Bush," Obama said, arguing that such comparisons overlook important differences between the two administrations' policies, according to several sources attending the meeting.

. . .

...Attorney General Eric Holder sat by silently while the president curtly dismissed the idea that his Justice Department should criminally prosecute at least one Bush administration official for torture, if only as a symbolic move to demonstrate that actions such as waterboarding will never be tolerated again.

. . .

But sources say Obama did all the talking, starting the meeting with a 10- to -15-minute discourse on his attempts to "institutionally" overhaul the Bush counterterror agenda by establishing clear policies and guidelines based on the rule of law and not dependent on the individual judgment of him or any other future president. It was at that point, according to two sources in attendance, that Obama talked about inheriting "a mess" from the prior administration. Obama also appeared frustrated by the growing criticism directed at him over the Guantánamo issue, two of those present said.

"He was worried about the theoretical possibility of people being released [from Guantánamo] and then committing terrorist acts," one of those present said. "He talked about what would happen if he released somebody and then they committed a terrorist act. He wants to keep open the option of keeping people in detention with trial." My note: I suspect "with" should be "without" here- otherwise the quote makes no sense. - Kris

. . .

Another issue raised at the meeting was the idea of a "truth commission" to investigate Bush-era policies. Obama didn't completely reject the idea, two sources said, but instead complained that current congressional investigations into such issues were too time-consuming for key members of his administration. Looking directly at Holder, the president reportedly said the attorney general was already spending too much time dealing with litigation related to Bush-administration policies. "He was worried that his people would be consumed with responding to these things," said one of those present. "He said his staff was stretched very thin."

It was at that point, toward the end of the meeting, that one attendee raised the idea of criminal prosecution of at least one Bush-era official, if only as a symbolic gesture. Obama dismissed the idea, several of those in attendance said, making it clear that he had no interest in such an investigation. Holder—whose department is supposed to make the call on criminal prosecutions—reportedly said nothing.

This meeting sounds less like Obama listening to advice and more like a precinct boss calling lieutenants onto the carpet and squashing dissent. If Isikoff's sources are correct, the best that can be said is that Obama wants to emulate Jerry Ford; ignore the wrongdoing of his predecessor, and hope it goes away.

But if Cheney was right about Obama retaining authority to torture prisoners... then Obama's opposition to investigating war crimes- and that quip about Holder losing too much time to lawsuits over Bush's policies- they take on a new and very sinister light indeed.

Which is why I really regret dialup right now.

So, y'all with the big pipes: is Talking Points Memo interpreting that clip correctly, or is it an exaggeration?

Comments

[stm4e.livejournal.com]

Paraphrasing here, but...

Matthews: "Has the President ruled out torture?"
Axelrod: "The president has made his feelings clear on this issue".

He never flat-out said "No, we haven't ruled it out" or "Yes, the President has declared that he'll never do it". I guess you can interpret the references to Obama's "feelings" (which was stated at least twice) in a bunch of different ways though..

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a very definite evasion to me, especially since- as I've noted before- Obama has never said that torture is illegal.

[stm4e.livejournal.com]

It certainly wasn't a direct answer, but I always wonder whether a flunky will give a direct answer in situations like these and put words in his boss's mouth.