Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Obama Convicts Loughner Before Trial

Somebody didn't vet President Obama's milquetoast Arizona Daily Star op-ed on gun control last weekend:

"But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.

He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse." -- Barack Obama, Arizona Star, March 13, 2011.

Hmm.... one of the first things I was taught in Journalism 101 is that you never, ever categorically state that someone committed a crime.  You write something to the effect of "Joe Blow was arrested on charges of public lewdness"  or "Barry allegedly passed on the right, causing the accident."

Obama just succeeded in tainting any jury pool called to consider the fate of Loughner.  This could be a gift to his defense lawyer.  How could anyone get a fair trial once the President of the United States has already declared him a murderer?

I give props to MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell for pointing out the op-ed's glaring faux pas on his show last night. I am really surprised it hasn't been picked up by any other media outlets -- at least I haven't seen it reported anywhere else in all my internet news travels.

This all leads me to believe that Obama didn't even write this plodding, talking-pointy, bullet-pointy op-ed. He may not have even read it.  As a graduate of Harvard Law, he should have caught the mistake. 

Sounds like a few heads need to roll besides that of a State Department spokesman who speaks out against the inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning.


Draft Spitzer said...

Holy crap...

BigmacInPittsburgh said...

Karen,why don't you just admit you are not a fan of the Present and leave at that,the hate for the President is obvious.

Draft Spitzer said...

I think you meant "President"? If so, why ask Karen to restate what she already has stated many times? Karen has no reason to be the President's "fan." She is a citizen of these United States and thereby obliged to point out where and when the administration is failing to meets its promises, and where and when it is failing to meet the mandate handed to it by "we the people" not, "we the fans".
"Fans" are for Frank Sinatra and Beyonce. We are talking about government here, not entertainment news.

Karen Garcia said...


Criticism of a public figure for his/her actions does not translate into "hate". Only Sarah Palin refers to critics as "haters."


Ms.Pearl said...

Karen is doing precisely what Obama asked us to do: hold him accountable. Of course, when she and others do just that, they are called by Obama "sanctimonious purists," which is a label I will gladly wear. And then there are the attacks by the Obama cool-aid drinkers. Some people just don't get it.

Denis Neville said...

Karen says, “How could anyone get a fair trial once the President of the United States has already declared him a murderer? … This all leads me to believe that Obama didn't even write this plodding, talking-pointy, bullet-pointy op-ed. He may not have even read it. As a graduate of Harvard Law, he should have caught the mistake.”

Do you really think so?

Given, as Glenn Greenwald has written, “It's the case in Barack Obama's world that those who instituted a worldwide torture and illegal eavesdropping regime are entitled to full-scale presidential immunity, while powerless individuals who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing and illegality are subjected to the most aggressive campaign of prosecution and persecution the country has ever seen. So protecting those who are abusing Manning, while firing Crowley for condemning the abuse, is perfectly consistent with the President's sense of justice.”

And are you really surprised that the op-ed's glaring faux past hasn't been picked up by any other media outlets?

Again, Glenn Greenwald, “One can debate whether it's good that American media outlets are driven in their reporting by an allegiance to the U.S. government and what these reporters define as America's ‘national interests.’ But what's not debatable is that this is far away from an ‘objective’ press, and even further away from an adversarial one. America's ‘establishment media’ is properly described as such precisely because their overarching objective is to promote and defend establishment interests in what they report to -- and conceal from -- their readers. That's precisely why so many people are increasingly turning to other outlets that are emancipated from those biases -- foreign media, the Internet, whistle-blowing sites -- in order to remain informed.”

Karen Garcia said...


Obama's modus operandi is to delegate. That way, he can rise above the fray in his own mind and keep his hands clean, because he safely keeps his mouth shut.

Have you noticed he keeps deferring to "my team?" when faced with a difficult situation? Example: rather than come right out and vow to protect Social Security to the death, he hedges with the usual "all ideas are on the table. I want to work with Democrats and Republicans."
Translation: it will be cut.

The leadership and the principles are just not there.

As for Glenn Greenwald, he is a national treasure.

Marie Burns said...

I think young Barry Obama must have been out campaigning for Harvard Law Review Editor (he won!) the day his professor taught "presumption of innocence." Remember the Skip Gates arrest? While admitting he didn't know the details of what-all occurred to precipitate Gates' arrest, President Obama was still quick to condemn the Cambridge police for "acting stupidly."

The officer whom he condemned, BTW, was named James Crowley. In view of the unwarranted firing of State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, I'd suggest anybody named Crowley should think twice about taking a government job.

The Constant Weader

Draft Spitzer said...

You clearly missed the moment during the Bush administration when they added the TOOYA clause to the Imperial Presidency. That is, once an individual has attained the proper support from the major corporate powers to maintain the status quo corruption at a level that can assure that every last one of us can be thoroughly irradiated, then that individual, after being appointed President by said powers, is free to talk out of his ass all he pleases without threat of being called out for same by the MSM.
Don't worry, Marie, you can't possibly be expected to read EVERYTHING that came along during the last decade - the sheer rate of BS was just too much for even you to keep up with.

turnipseed said...

You know, I'm just so very glad that he's even trying to address gun control. I think he is haunted by the shootings, especially the little girl, Christina, who was the same age as his younger daughter. I am willing to call this an oversight and let it go. He is finally using the bully pulpit a little--let's not condemn him at the starting gate.

turnipseed said...


NYT will begin charging (3/28), for online subscription (for more than 20 articles). Thirty-five dollars every four weeks!

What do you all think? I will miss reading comments, but $35 is a little rich for me. I will still be able to read "latest news" free on phone, it seems.

turnipseed said...


I guess it's only $15/mo. for the computer and phone. Doesn't include the puzle--another $40/yr. It's all getting to be too much. I know the paper costs money, but in order to get it "free", I had to buy a computer and pay $20/mo for a pretty slow DSL connection. I only read a few articles and the op-eds. There's always the BBC, which I read anyway.

Marie, will you just add a blog to Chex, so I can read you there?

That's better, but I don't know if it's worth it. Maybe I'll go back to reading it at the library as I used to years ago.

Karen Garcia said...

Dear Turnipseed,

According to the email I received, The Times will be giving a special introductory offer to you if you are already logged in as a commenter/recommender. or TimesPeople member.

I foresee a big decrease in the number of people commenting on the Times articles and op-eds once they have to start paying for the privilege. Maybe we can set up an expanded comments section on our blogs. I think we should wait and see how this unfolds before we panic.

Many of the people who comment are on fixed incomes. Many of the readers are unemployed and suffering. My concern is that people who are hurting are not going to get their voices heard as they once were able to, via The Times. I agree with what some commenters published today that $5 a month would be better for them than $15 or more... and also for the paper, which would probably get more revenue from lower pricing.

I will be writing more about this in coming weeks.


turnipseed said...

Thanks, Karen; I'll look forward to hearing what you come up with. Also, I agree completely about folks with fixed incomes and such. It's not the $15 so much as it's $15 on top of everything else we are being dunned for--there's a tipping point for me, anyway.

By the way, I hate "introductory" offers. What good is that once the offer expires?

Janet Camp