Then, no matter how much they, their surrogates, and his truly creepy and repulsive fanbots (most of whom I am now concinved are astroturfers), say otherwise, they will basically share in the guilt and crimes that they're trying to avoid dealing with, and that is how history will judge them. Obama, Dems and their supporters and enablers call this "moving on". The world will call and see it for what it is: moral cowardice. And it will be his and their legacy.

No one ever dedicated a monument to people who were too gutless to "look backward".

And I find it especially hypocritical that Obama lectured the Turkish parliament that they must acknowledge and deal with the Armenian genocide--i.e. "look back"--and then scurry back home and lecture us all to just "look forward" and "move on".

If you put together all the crimes perpetrated by the Bush regime, including not just torture but rendition, indefinite detention without due process, illegal wars that caused the death, injury, displacement and other sufferinig of millions of innocent Iraqis, Afghanistanis and Pakistanis, the horrific non-response to Katrina, the massive war profiteering, the billions stolen from Americans by these profiteers, oil companies, banks and others, and the economic meltdown, then we have a set of crimes that easily rival the mass state-sponsored ones of the 20th century in terms of total death, injury and suffering.

Do Obama & Co. want to become know in history as the people who tried to suppress all that in order to just "move on"? Anyone taking part in the whole "move on" charge seriously need to take a good hard look at what they're advocating for, because it puts them squarely on the wrong side of history. Do they really want to be be on the side of the Armenian and Nazi Holocaust deniers, Chinese people who claim that Tibet was always a part of China, the friends of General Pinochet, and the racists and opportunists who ended Reconstruction, all to just "move on"? They might seriously want to reconsider their stance of "looking forward, not back" if they don't want to be seen as history's willing forgivers of mass evil.

And I don't buy all the bullshit about how we have to choose between "looking backward", and universal health care, fixing the economy and ending global warming. Anyone who posits this false choice is either an idiot, or a liar--or both. Last time I checked, post-WWII Germany was not only able to accept blame for the Holocaust and undergo a wrenching truth-finding and justice-seeking process that took decades to work itself out, and pay out staggering sums in reparations (something that no one has even brought up in the US that I know of, but which I thing would be only fair), but transform itself into one of the most progressive, advanced, economically successful countries in the post-WWII era. So don't give me this "We can't walk and chew gum at the same time" crap. Anyone pushing this idiotic and dishonest meme is just trying to get off the hook, avoid a painful process, or just pimping their own agenda.

And Obama, Dems and their surrogates and supporters are doing EXACTLY that here.

Shame on them all. And shame on us if we let them.

Literally, as these are all recent events that he appeared at that were covered by CSPAN:

U.S. Supreme Court

Event Date: 10/25/2007

Mr. Rosen talked with students about whether the U.S. Supreme Court is too conservative:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=201786-1

Federalism and the Supreme Court

Event Date: 11/21/2008

People: Jeffrey Rosen, Walter E. Dellinger, Paul D. Clement, David B. Sentelle, John C. Eastman

A panel discussion was held about how the philosophy of federalism has been expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=282525-4

National Security Law Challenges

Event Date: 04/10/2008

People: Jeffrey Rosen, Marcia G. Cooke, Justin Florence, Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks, J. Patrick Rowan

Panelists discussed national security law challenges for the next administration. Topics included Guantanamo Bay detainees and the idea of establishing a National Security Court in place of military tribunals

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=203232-3

What's in YOUR intellectual wallet, Mr. Rosen?

with John Roberts and Guido Calabresi at GW Law School, in case no one's noted this already, which might give a sense of her judicial thinking and style:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=191127-1

I only watched a few minutes of it when it aired, but my impression of her was of a very detail-oriented and aggressive but fair legal interlocutor who clearly knew and cared about the law and was no sufferer of lazy or incomplete arguments. Which, I'd think, are good qualities to have in a judge, so long as done in a principled, honest and responsible manner.

Obviously, though, only white men are allowed to be tough and aggressive. Or smart.

And, while we're at it, here's a female lawyer whom Obama HAS nominated and who, while not as outwardly aggressive, is clearly sharp-minded, dedicated and passionate about the law, and apparently quite good at it (which is why she's clearly unfit for high office):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JogwzOPe2Q&feature=player_embedded

Why Rosen is doing this, I don't know, but having seen him a number of times on TV, he didn't strike me as stupid or lazy, but he did strike me as ideologically centrist and very ambitious, so I'm guessing that this is a hit job to unfairly prejudice the nomination process against her at the outset, for reasons that I'm not qualified to say. My guess is that she scares the Stuart Taylors and Marty Peretzes of the establishment, be it for legal or personal reasons--or both.