- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
, What we've actually had is too little questioning of the President, too much blind support for him, too much power and trust placed in him and the apparatuses he controls that they know what's best, are doing the right thing, are telling us what we need to know and no more.
I could not agree more. And when I say that we've had "too much jumping around" in the absence of empirical facts, I'm refering to those in all walks of life who abetted the disastrous Bush administration by failing to look at facts. I hope that the progressive alternative is one that exhibits a greater consideration of empirical details than faith based rhetorical position of the Executive in over the previous eight years. Again, this includes criticism of the Obama administration when warranted.
Looking at Obama’s comments on Sunday, I think they were fairly innocuous; you could read them anywhere on the spectrum from being infelicitous to indicative of some desire to use evidence gathered through torture as the basis for criminal prosecutions. Given that the man had not taken office, not held the reins of the executive for so much a second, I am willing to reserve criticism until I have some empirical evidence to support a failure, either of policy or moral character. If he after a month or two in office, he fails to close Gitmo, or makes a move towards the establishment of some court with evidentiary rules that diverge from our legal traditions or moral principle, you and I can link arms and scream bloody murder together. Until then, I elect to “keep my powder dry” (trite platitude inserted for your enjoyment).
