I thought Obama's press conference last night was very interesting and also
very revealing, now having 100 days under his belt.

A few impressions:

Very much in command and demonstrating superb leadership qualities.
(I have to admit, I misjudged him during the campaign cycle)

Expressed a new level (for him) of respect and understanding of military
personnel from top to bottom in terms of their commitment, professionalism
and pride in doing their job, however distasteful. I found this
particularly interesting because although he has paid the obligatory
tributes before, last night's comments had a different tone and respect.
It's as if he has learned something in the past 100 days. Good for him!

Although on the record of opposing it (and outlawing it) he is still
struggling with the use of torture question. It's obvious. He's still
reading specific past rationales of it's use or not by other world leaders.
At one point he was specifically asked if he would authorize torture if he
knew a major attack on the US was imminent and the torture of someone would
provide the information required to advert the attack. His answer was
complex. The first words out of his mouth was that "First of all, I will
do anything required to protect the people of the USA". (paraphrased) But
then he went on to say that the USA needs to maintain a moral high ground
and that options other than torture are available.

But. He did *not* rule torture out. His acknowledged first priority is to
protect the USA and it's people, and he will do "anything required" to
accomplish that. Interesting.

It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding and
wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in one's two
hands. He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider, not the
polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.

Those of us in the media reporting and analyzing and those of us armchair
critics cannot possibly understand the pressure on someone like the POTUS in
deciding these types of questions.

As a commenter pointed out, the chance of the USA using a nuclear device on
another country is virtually zero. However, the concept that they *could*
be used have never been removed from the table.

Final observation. Pakistan. Obama has identified the Taliban in and
around Pakistan as a major potential threat because they could gain control
of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. He commented that we can "not allow" a band
of rouge, militant groups to establish political control over a government
whose country has nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Hmmmm. This sounds familiar. Indeed, Obama has had a crash course in
the "real" world in the past 100 days.

Believe it or not, it's for these reasons that my confidence in his
abilities to be a good, strong POTUS, while still pursuing a goal of
diffusing world conflicts has gone up significantly.

I am still having problems with his plans for fixing the economy however.
Can't afford it.

Over and out.

Eisboch

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:16:24 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Those of us in the media reporting and analyzing and those of us
armchair critics cannot possibly understand the pressure on someone like
the POTUS in deciding these types of questions.

We may not be able to understand the pressure, but we will be able to see
it. Watch how quickly Obama ages in the next several years.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:16:24 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Although on the record of opposing it (and outlawing it) he is still
struggling with the use of torture question. It's obvious. He's still
reading specific past rationales of it's use or not by other world leaders.
At one point he was specifically asked if he would authorize torture if he
knew a major attack on the US was imminent and the torture of someone would
provide the information required to advert the attack. His answer was
complex. The first words out of his mouth was that "First of all, I will
do anything required to protect the people of the USA". (paraphrased) But
then he went on to say that the USA needs to maintain a moral high ground
and that options other than torture are available.

But. He did *not* rule torture out. His acknowledged first priority is to
protect the USA and it's people, and he will do "anything required" to
accomplish that. Interesting.

It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding and
wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in one's two
hands. He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider, not the
polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.

It's not tough to anybody who thinks clearly.
Basically, should the President be allowed to sanction torturing you,
your wife, your daughter, your son?
Can he delegate the decision to Nancy Pelosi?
That's what could happen if you allow the government to torture.
The "enemies of the state" don't have to be ragheads.
Anybody can be pulled off the street by the gov.
The government has no right to torture.
I don't trust them.
Subversion of the Constitution.
Obama was walking a tightrope, and fell on his ass.
The lame ass "ticking time bomb" strikes again.
Never happened. Never. TV fantasy.
I join Cheney in demanding the release of the "torture
transcriptions."
Cocksucking gov torturers already destroyed the videotapes.
Wonder why?

--Vic

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:16:24 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Those of us in the media reporting and analyzing and those of us
armchair critics cannot possibly understand the pressure on someone like
the POTUS in deciding these types of questions.

We may not be able to understand the pressure, but we will be able to see
it. Watch how quickly Obama ages in the next several years.


Same with Bush. It's sometimes difficult to buy into the spin that he was
nothing but a a loose cannon cowboy.
He certainly wears the rewards of worry and concern.

Eisboch

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:50:31 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Same with Bush. It's sometimes difficult to buy into the spin that he
was nothing but a a loose cannon cowboy.

You know, if the Bush administration hadn't been so secretive, we'd now
have a better understanding of it's inner workings without the spin.


He certainly wears the rewards of worry and concern.

Eisboch

On Apr 30, 8:58*am, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:50:31 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
Same with Bush. * It's sometimes difficult to buy into the spin that he
was nothing but a a loose cannon cowboy.

You know, if the Bush administration hadn't been so secretive, we'd now
have a better understanding of it's inner workings without the spin.



He certainly wears the rewards of worry and concern.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't worry, Obama will release all the Bush era secrets... While at
the same time closing the books on it's own. Too bad nobody was called
on last night that would dare ask any important questions, too bad we
don't know who got the guided tour of NYC on airforce 1, or who else
in the admin has been given waivers to circumvent the promises Obama
the candidate made...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:16:24 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding
and
wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in one's
two
hands. He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider, not the
polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.




It's not tough to anybody who thinks clearly.
Basically, should the President be allowed to sanction torturing you,
your wife, your daughter, your son?
Can he delegate the decision to Nancy Pelosi?
That's what could happen if you allow the government to torture.
The "enemies of the state" don't have to be ragheads.
Anybody can be pulled off the street by the gov.
The government has no right to torture.
I don't trust them.
Subversion of the Constitution.
Obama was walking a tightrope, and fell on his ass.
The lame ass "ticking time bomb" strikes again.
Never happened. Never. TV fantasy.
I join Cheney in demanding the release of the "torture
transcriptions."
Cocksucking gov torturers already destroyed the videotapes.
Wonder why?

--Vic

As smart and experienced in life as you may be or I may be, neither of us
have ever experienced the level of responsibility the POTUS has. We can
have our opinions and ideas about things, but it's a different story when
one actually *has* the decision making responsibility.

How did Truman justify in his mind that dropping A-bombs on civilian
populations was justified?
Same with Churchill and the massive fire bombing of Berlin?

Eisboch

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:06:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:16:24 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding
and
wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in one's
two
hands. He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider, not the
polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.




It's not tough to anybody who thinks clearly.
Basically, should the President be allowed to sanction torturing you,
your wife, your daughter, your son?
Can he delegate the decision to Nancy Pelosi?
That's what could happen if you allow the government to torture.
The "enemies of the state" don't have to be ragheads.
Anybody can be pulled off the street by the gov.
The government has no right to torture.
I don't trust them.
Subversion of the Constitution.
Obama was walking a tightrope, and fell on his ass.
The lame ass "ticking time bomb" strikes again.
Never happened. Never. TV fantasy.
I join Cheney in demanding the release of the "torture
transcriptions."
Cocksucking gov torturers already destroyed the videotapes.
Wonder why?

--Vic

As smart and experienced in life as you may be or I may be, neither of us
have ever experienced the level of responsibility the POTUS has. We can
have our opinions and ideas about things, but it's a different story when
one actually *has* the decision making responsibility.

How did Truman justify in his mind that dropping A-bombs on civilian
populations was justified?
Same with Churchill and the massive fire bombing of Berlin?

I didn't mention bombing the Japs or Krauts in WWII in the most
massive conflagration in human history.
I asked a simple question about giving the President life and death
rights over an individual in a torture chamber.
There's a tremendous difference.
Could be you, your kids, your friends.
Americans. Innocent.
Presidents call. Or maybe delegated to Nancy Pelosi.
She may see some teabaggers as a threat to "national security."
I say no. You're free to answer the question as you please.

--Vic

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

I thought Obama's press conference last night was very interesting and
also very revealing, now having 100 days under his belt.

A few impressions:

Very much in command and demonstrating superb leadership qualities.
(I have to admit, I misjudged him during the campaign cycle)

Expressed a new level (for him) of respect and understanding of military
personnel from top to bottom in terms of their commitment, professionalism
and pride in doing their job, however distasteful. I found this
particularly interesting because although he has paid the obligatory
tributes before, last night's comments had a different tone and respect.
It's as if he has learned something in the past 100 days. Good for him!

Although on the record of opposing it (and outlawing it) he is still
struggling with the use of torture question. It's obvious. He's still
reading specific past rationales of it's use or not by other world
leaders. At one point he was specifically asked if he would authorize
torture if he knew a major attack on the US was imminent and the torture
of someone would provide the information required to advert the attack.
His answer was complex. The first words out of his mouth was that
"First of all, I will do anything required to protect the people of the
USA". (paraphrased) But then he went on to say that the USA needs to
maintain a moral high ground and that options other than torture are
available.

But. He did *not* rule torture out. His acknowledged first priority is
to protect the USA and it's people, and he will do "anything required" to
accomplish that. Interesting.

It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding
and wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in
one's two hands. He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider,
not the polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.

Those of us in the media reporting and analyzing and those of us armchair
critics cannot possibly understand the pressure on someone like the POTUS
in deciding these types of questions.

As a commenter pointed out, the chance of the USA using a nuclear device
on another country is virtually zero. However, the concept that they
*could* be used have never been removed from the table.

Final observation. Pakistan. Obama has identified the Taliban in and
around Pakistan as a major potential threat because they could gain
control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. He commented that we can "not
allow" a band of rouge, militant groups to establish political control
over a government whose country has nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Hmmmm. This sounds familiar. Indeed, Obama has had a crash course in
the "real" world in the past 100 days.

Believe it or not, it's for these reasons that my confidence in his
abilities to be a good, strong POTUS, while still pursuing a goal of
diffusing world conflicts has gone up significantly.

I am still having problems with his plans for fixing the economy however.
Can't afford it.

Over and out.

Eisboch


I'm just another dumbass in the ethernet, but I have to wonder: if we have
drugs to make people spill secrets and we have been told by just about every
intelligence agency out there, including our own CIA, that the torturee will
say anything you want him to say to stop the beating, cattle prodding,
electric shock to the ol testees, waterboarding, etc, etc, etc.... why the
hell was this crap ever started?
Was it so the tapes and transcripts could be produced containing exactly
what the torturers were directed to "discover"? This "product" could then be
used to justify just about anything the big dogs wanted to do when trotted
out to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

On Apr 30, 9:03*am, wrote:
On Apr 30, 8:58*am, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:50:31 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
Same with Bush. * It's sometimes difficult to buy into the spin that he
was nothing but a a loose cannon cowboy.

You know, if the Bush administration hadn't been so secretive, we'd now
have a better understanding of it's inner workings without the spin.

He certainly wears the rewards of worry and concern.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't worry, Obama will release all the Bush era secrets... While at
the same time closing the books on it's own. Too bad nobody was called
on last night that would dare ask any important questions, too bad we
don't know who got the guided tour of NYC on airforce 1, or who else
in the admin has been given waivers to circumvent the promises Obama
the candidate made...

Yep, nothing good, ever.
And nothing bad of the Bush admin, ever.
It's getting old