Bush, Cheney, Pelosi and Testifying About Torture

I.F. Stone used to joke that what passed for investigative journalism in Washington was actually just the restating of what was already in the public record at the appropriate time.

So it is that The Politico is making a big deal today about supposed "revelations" regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's knowledge of the Bush-Cheney administration's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques." House Republicans, and their amen corner in the media, are claiming that "new revelations" suggest Pelosi had a role in promoting the use of waterboarding.

"If someone is going to schedule hearings, I believe that the first witness should be Nancy Pelosi," Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, the hyper-partisan Republican who serves as the ranking member on the House intelligence committee, chirps in the Politico report. "Clearly, she was involved in policy formulation."

That's sexy spin.

Unfortunately for Hoekstra and the Politico, it is detached from reality. And that detachment is being promoted by defenders of the Bush-Cheney administration who are working night and day to block a comprehensive inquiry into potentially criminal abuses of power by the former president and vice president and their aides.

First off, we have little in the way of "new revelations."

Some of us began writing a year and a half ago about the fact that Pelosi, a longtime member of the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed in 2002 on waterboarding. Here's a link to "Pelosi and Torture" -- a piece I wrote in December, 2007.

After detailing concerns about Pelosi's participation in meetings where waterboarding was discussed -- and the suggestion that she and others might have asked if the techniques being used were "tough enough" -- I argued that:

If this is the case, Pelosi has provided aid and comfort to the Bush administration's efforts to deviate not just from the standards set by international agreements regarding war crimes but from the provision of the Bill of Rights that establishes basic requirements with regard to the treatment of prisoners who are in the custody of the United States.

Those deviations are precisely the sort of impeachable offenses that Pelosi has said are "off the table." Her association with the administration on the matter of torture necessarily calls into question the speaker's credibility on questions of how and when to hold the administration to account. It also begs a more mundane political question: At a point when Republicans like John McCain are earning points with their forthright stances against waterboarding, isn't the credibility and the potential effectiveness of the House Democratic Caucus as an honest player in the debate profoundly harmed by the involvement of its leader in behind-the-scenes meetings that by all accounts encouraged the use of that technique?

Pelosi has since offered a relatively detailed and, to the view of many observers, compelling defense of her participation in the CIA briefings. To wit:

Of the forty CIA briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002, as I have previously stated. As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: 'I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.' I had no further briefings on the techniques.

My understanding of the briefing I received is consistent with the description that CIA General Counsel Scott Muller provided to Congresswoman Jane Harman in a letter dated February 28, 2003, which states: 'As we informed both you and the leadership of the Intelligence Committees last September, a number of Executive Branch lawyers including lawyers from the Department of Justice participated in the determination that, in the appropriate circumstances, the use of these techniques is fully consistent with U.S. law.' As reported in the press, the accompanying memo from CIA Director Panetta concedes that the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate.

Reasonable people may differ on whether the speaker is being as forthcoming as need be -- although former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Bob Graham has stepped forward to corroborate her statements -- and on the extent to which she is complicit with the former administration. I remain disappointed about Pelosi's decision to block the necessary accountability moment in 2007, and I remain genuinely concerned that her caution with regard to impeachment was influenced by personal and political considerations rather than by the best interests of the republic.

But our purpose now should be to get beyond the base political positioning and partisan gamesmanship that has blocked not just accountability but the restoration of our system of checks and balances.

This brings us to the question Pete Hoekstra unwittingly poses: Should Pelosi be encouraged to testify -- before a Senate inquiry (my preference), some other congressional hearing or an independent commission -- about what she knew and when she knew it?

Absolutely.

Indeed, with the mounting evidence -- much of it provided by former Vice President Dick Cheney in his confessional interviews with friendly journalists -- that the Bush-Cheney administration conspired to create a false legal construct to "justify" the use of torture, Pelosi's testimony could be highly significant.

Pelosi should be grilled on this. If if she feels some heat for her past actions, so be it.

When all is said and done, however, it is likely that she will be a bit player in this drama.

It would seem that Pelosi is in a position to confirm that the former administration and its allies at the CIA lied to Congress and the American people about illegal activities that were in direct conflict with the Constitution.

The point here ought not be to condemn nor to absolve Pelosi, or others who participated in those briefings.

The point should be to get to the truth of what an administration that enjoyed something akin to absolute power in 2002 did with that power.

Cheney's statements suggest that the truth will be far more harmful to the former vice president, his aides, his lawyers and others associated with the Bush-Cheney administration than to the current Speaker of the House.

Pelosi participated in those briefings as a relatively new member of the leadership team of a minority caucus in a House of Representatives that after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was dramatically deferential to the executive branch.

In other words, it is absurd to suggest that she was -- or could have been -- a definitional player in the outlining or implementation of schemes to employ cruel and unusual punishment to extract dubious information from prisoners of the United States government.

As such, Pete Hoekstra's claim with regard to Pelosi -- "Clearly, she was involved in policy formulation" -- is ridiculous on its face. Hoekstra's ranting can and should be exposed for what it is: An attempt to scare Democrats (and sensible Republicans) away from pursuing a needed inquiry into who actually formulated, authorized and practiced deception with regard to the use of torture techniques.

What to do? Call Hoekstra's bluff.

Pelosi should agree to testify, thoroughly, cooperatively and under oath.

George Bush, Dick Cheney and all of their aides and lawyers should be expected to do the same.

As someone who has been highly critical of Pelosi on these issues, I don't see grounds for a credible claim that "she was involved in policy formulation." (If she was, of course, then she, too, should be held to account.)

I do see grounds for a credible claim that Pelosi was lied to.

And I am certain that the Speaker has a responsibility to help investigators get to the bottom of the question of who formulated those torture policies -- and the lies associated with them.

Comments (216)

1. this kind of trickery might have worked in the past, but i don't think it will now...

   so the defense of iniquity is..."she did it too!"?

   typical...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2009 @ 3:02pm

2. The American people could care less about this. What they want to know is:

   Is the president keeping us safe?

   Only the far left is consumed with this.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 3:27pm

3. No more preferential treatment for those Democrats; they can't have it both ways and win elections too. Look to their pathetic stand on Healthcare; they are letting the lobbyists dictate the terms of the so-called healthcare reform.

   The Democratic double-speak when it comes to the interest of the American people has to be challenged. They can't vote for war, and then denounce it. They can't disagree with war, and then finance it. They can't claim advocacy for National Healthcare and then side with the lobbyists. This failed strategy will lead to one outcome: Republicans comeback.

   Pelosi, Jane Harman and Senator Jay Rockefeller should stand to testify in Congress, not only about their role in supporting the policies of the renegade President G. W. Bush, but about the special interest which pushed them to act so despicably.

   Posted by CripThink at 05/11/2009 @ 3:31pm

4. "Is the president keeping us safe?" (antoisocialist)

   That's so typical of defending Bush and "moving forward". That's what the Nazi families said about not having the Nuremberg trials."For the good of the vaderland". Jawol. As to the pathetic Pelosi excuse that she was only briefed for torture that was to take place in the future, that's called "conspiracy to commit torture" and that is illegal.She didn't want impeachment not only because of implicating herself, but to prevent investigations from exposing the role Israel took in 9/11. And if you want to know what role that is, ask the biochemistry department at Copenhagen University. End of story.

   Posted by mystic at 05/11/2009 @ 3:41pm

5. After the way Pelosi treated Cindy Sheehan after Sheehan started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that she held the Republican Party, support for Sheehan's cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling her with the same slurs that the right used. Pelosi and the mainstream democrats turned on Sheehan as soon as she held that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of 'right or left,' but 'right and wrong.'

   I think Nancy lied about any knowledge of enhanced interrogation methods because of fear of further alienating the far left fringe. And out of concern of political liability in the event of another terrorist strike, she didn't blow the whistle and instead condoned the actions.

   Wouldn't it be fascinating if the White House was using this whole enhanced interrogation red herring as a way to pressure and politically control Pelosi and her dependents in the house?

   They play hardball in DC.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 05/11/2009 @ 3:55pm

6. John, I think it would be great to see Pelosi testify. That would do two things. 1) It would probably clear her. 2) It would put the cowardly rethugs in the hot seat. They've been hiding behind executive privy or using the excuse that national security is the reason they can't testify. I'd love to see the lying cowards called out to testify under oath...no doubt they'd all take the 5th.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/11/2009 @ 4:04pm

7. Only the far left is consumed with this.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 3:27pm |

   Really?

   You are going to stick with this? No reality check? i will give you a chance to back pedal now.

   Tell me, Anti, has Israel EVER had a "ticking time bomb" scenario that was prevented by their torture of multiple Hamas and PLO members?

   Has the US EVER prevented a "ticking time bomb" by using harsh methods?

   The answer is "no".

   Your belief system is based upon false information and movie theory. Why you insist on allowing civilian control of the war effort is beyond me. i thought that is what "your side" argued against post Vietnam and pre-Iraq war. I guess it just goes along with all the other "core values" you toss aside when fear comes a-callin.

   Posted by crabwalk at 05/11/2009 @ 4:11pm

8. I guess Sarah Palin ran along with a "far leftist".

   Tee hee. Silly girl.

   Another thing I cannot figure out is...why do people like Rev Larry WANT US soldiers to be killed? We have written and verbal testimony from "the troops" that the torture of Muslims has in fact lead to the death of American soldiers and Marines. Why would he want that to continue? Especially when the career interrogators tell us that harsh methods are counterproductive. Larry listens to civilians, and known fabricators, not the troops. oops.

   Next thing he will be telling us that Curveball said torture worked great, and Achmed Chalibi will lead us to Usama.

   Posted by crabwalk at 05/11/2009 @ 4:18pm

9. Ok lets say Pelosi had been briefed on exactly what was going to take place. I don't know if this was the case or not. Had she known what would have been the responsible thing to do? Violate her security clearance?

   I think we should move on from this issue. As far as issues of importance to spend our resources on this is towards the bottom of my list. However, if Cheney does not shut is fat trap about how Obama is undermining American security, clinging to the politics of fear. I may start supporting a war crimes trial for Dick.

   Posted by Extraneous at 05/11/2009 @ 4:24pm

10. Hey Crab,

    How strange this all is to me. Of course torture is wrong. But we are all very humanly subjective on torture. If terrorists got a hold of Obama's lovely daughters, for instance, God forbid, and the FBI was able to capture one of the terrorists. Do you think the American people would be adamant that absolutely no extreme interrogation methods be employed to find the children? Bulls**t! The kidnapper would need to be protected FROM the public! The ACLU would even provide Evian, to make the waterboarding of that terrorist kidnapper more humane... I mean, in this sickening scenario, what would Obama voters think about a Republican politician who stood up before Congress and emphatically called for oversight and protection of the terrorist's "rights"?

    As Antisocial correctly states, only the far left is consumed by this and I believe the motives are entirely political, not moral..

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/11/2009 @ 4:35pm

11. "As Antisocial correctly states, only the far left is consumed by this and I believe the motives are entirely political, not moral.."

    uh, you forgot the only compelling motivation for prosecutions: binding domestic and international law.

    freiheit (shit for brains): tell us, oh wise one, what usurps the geneva conventions and the convention against torture?

    please, mr. genius lawyer, tell us.

    (clock is ticking....)

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 4:59pm

12. no piece of american legislation, no legal memo, no compelling circumstance, no executive authority, nothing usurps the geneva conventions or the convention against torture. nothing.

    the only thing preventing prosecutions is the will and the determination.

    and that is what we are seeing now.

    and to see people like freiheit DEFENDING torture and torturers is........sadly, pathetic, treasonous, and cowardly. pretty much the only three words to describe both freiheit and cheney.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 5:01pm

13. "A CIA inspector general's report from May 2004 that is set to be declassified by the Obama White House will almost certainly disprove claims that waterboarding was only used in controlled circumstances with effective results.

    On Monday, the Washington Post reported the impending release of a May 7, 2004 IG report that, the paper added, would show that in several circumstances the techniques used to interrogate terrorist suspects "appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture" and did not produce desired results."

    "But there is no need to wait for the report's declassification. Information from its pages was already made public in the footnotes of the Office of Legal Counsel memos written by Steven Bradbury in 2005 and released by the current administration less than one month ago."

    "The difference was in the manner in which the detainee's breathing was obstructed," read the footnote, citing the IG report. "At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator... applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose."

    Medical personnel at the detention facility protested the use of the waterboard in that form, stressing that "there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.'"

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/11/2009 @ 5:48pm

14. "The important things to take away from the footnote seem clear: for a period of time interrogators were using the waterboard with a "frequency and cumulative use" that had to be toned down. Moreover, they were doing it in a way that was determined to not be "efficacious."

    The officials tasked with crafting and implementing the interrogation methods adjusted the techniques to fit within the legal parameters set forth by the Bush Department of Justice. But for a period of time, they were operating in excess and outside those bounds."

    (That were apparently not legally within the law as well...)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/11/2009 @ 5:54pm

15. Think maybe cHeney is getting out a lot per experiencing some claustrophobia per the drip drip dripping of cold streaming truth across his veil of lies?

    OH YEAH.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/11/2009 @ 6:09pm

16. I'm assuming you mean Cheney's motives for lack of morals, and on that I agree.

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/11/2009 @ 6:30pm

    No, I mean the motives for pursuing hearings.

    What Cheney is demonstrating is that he cares more about the country than himself. Most people would not put themselves in the situation where the leftist media and the left in general continue to attack him for speaking out.

    that is the mark of someone who cares deeply for his country; I remain grateful that we had him as vice president.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 7:05pm

17. According to the lead on Huffington Post, Cheney may switch back on his "release it all, it'll exonerate me" routine.

    Anyway more on-topic, how ironic that Bush and Cheney NEED Nancy Pelosi's skirts to hide behind...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 7:05pm

18. "freiheit (shit for brains): tell us, oh wise one, what usurps the geneva conventions and the convention against torture?

    please, mr. genius lawyer, tell us."

    Absolutely nothing Darla, legally. I'm not defending torture. I've contended all along that the political fallout for the democrats and the republicans make it unlikely to ever happen. I've also pointed out the subjective nature of this issue, outside the law.

    But I can't blame you thinking I'm pro-torture. After all, I do read all of your posts...

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/11/2009 @ 7:20pm

19. "I'm not defending torture"

    yeah, right. read your posts here, dude. you are mocking the very idea of having oversight, following the rules, and protecting the rights of detainees....

    you are, in fact, lying, when you say that you are not defending torture.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 7:29pm

20. "I've also pointed out the subjective nature of this issue, outside the law"

    there's nothing subjective about waterboarding.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 7:30pm

21. Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 3:27pm

    "Only the far left is consumed with this."

    Seemingly except when it is in power, the right also claims to be gravely concerned with government power, even more so than the left. Those on the right who now chant "But he kept us safe!" are now claiming to be scared to death that Obama plans to take their guns away and imprison them for being a "right-wing extremist", or a teabagger. If the right wants to prove it has principles, it should demand a full investigation of all involved, including the CIA staff that carried out this torture, and push for criminal prosecution where evidence warrants it. But aside from Cheney seemingly bluffing that he wants all documents revealed, they cower from this suggestion.

    So is only the far left consumed with this? It seems the far left is the only group of people genuinely concerned with the potential abuse of executive power, no matter who wields it, and is afraid for the future of our republic by ignoring past criminal and constitutional violations.

    Posted by zmann at 05/11/2009 @ 7:48pm

22. there's nothing subjective about waterboarding.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 7:30pm

    If there is no subjective element in waterboarding or any torture method for that matter why does it work on some and not on others or why does the UNCAT mention that torture needs to take into account the age, the physical and psychological profile etc of the one subjected to harsh interrogation when considering if a method is or is not torture?

    Or is it possible the S pages are missing from your dictionary?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/11/2009 @ 8:06pm

23. Darla, nope, not defending torture. The only argument here may be about the results. I've seen no evidence that can prove the results of waterboarding information out of three combatants stopped pending attacks and saved lives. Cheney claims it exists. I wonder. I also wonder what Daniel Pearl would write on this subject.

    I suspect you do indeed care whether lives were saved or not Darla. But you would still be against the means. That's your high road. I think that road is a lot harder to travel when you actually own some responsibility.

    Do you think this will be prosecuted?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/11/2009 @ 8:07pm

24. In spite of what this magazine would like to convey, most American (including my liberal friends and family) are not concerned or even remotely interested in three terrorists who were waterboarded.

    For them, this is a dead issue. They're much more concerned about keeping their jobs and a roof over their heads.

    I think things are very wrong when the press/media tries to divert the people's attention away from what's effecting them the most.

    I'm sorry, but torture methods and memos are not on my radar. I more pressing issues concerning my family, especially my family in Detroit.

    Posted by ACook at 05/11/2009 @ 8:12pm

25. Posted by zmann at 05/11/2009 @ 7:48pm

    zmann, the only thing the far left is concerned about is control. There's nothing "genuine" about them.

    Posted by ACook at 05/11/2009 @ 8:16pm

26. Posted by ACook at 05/11/2009 @ 8:16pm

    "zmann, the only thing the far left is concerned about is control. There's nothing "genuine" about them."

    Really. Got some examples? I don't remember the far left supporting a law that would grant the president the authority to detain for any length of time with no hope of recourse anybody he or she deemed to be an "enemy combatant", including American citizens. That seems like control on the order that Cheney would have wet dreams about.

    I'm sure you would consider me to be far left, even though I merely consider myself to be progressive with a bit of realism when it comes to international issues. But I assure you that I try to live my life in as most responsible a way as possible, being kind to others, continuously attempting to minimize my waste and use of resources and energy, and determined to only work in constructive occupations. That is pretty damn genuine, imho.

    Posted by zmann at 05/11/2009 @ 8:22pm

27. The Pugs need to get another TV channel and call it REvision!

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/11/2009 @ 8:51pm

    And the liberals just need to quit altogether.

    Posted by ACook at 05/11/2009 @ 8:55pm

28. And the liberals just need to quit altogether.

    Posted by ACook at 05/11/2009 @ 8:55pm

    One can only dream.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 9:48pm

29. What Cheney is demonstrating is that he cares more about the country than himself. that is the mark of someone who cares deeply for his country; Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 7:05pm

    Do you have a link to that? (HA)

    However cHeney has a different definition (like everything else) of what our country is comprised of and that which he's willing to defend-- and I mean by that what it is he really deep down cares about.

    Yep, of course, it's found within that which he drew closest to himself-- in his secret meetings, in the no bid contracts, in all the war profiteering-- his big corporate buds. That is the 'country' he is defending. Funny he never mentions the real oath he took (no not the satanic one), but for VPoTUS-- oath to defend our US Constitution from enemies afar and domestic. Our country are our laws, and by hsuB/cHeney violating our laws, they not only broke their oath of office by not defending our US Constitutionn, they became our nation's enemy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/11/2009 @ 9:48pm

30. If she new it was gong on and as most libs are against it torture she should have stood for her principles. But that would have been political suicide. So once again. She knew it was going on. Did nothing and now has lied about it. Bush Lied. Now Pelosi Lied too! Libs get the free pass as usual.

    Posted by apoorspic at 05/11/2009 @ 10:02pm

31. that is the mark of someone who cares deeply for his country; I remain grateful that we had him as vice president.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 7:05pm |

    Or someone who likes the limelight. Paris Hilton kept being attacked by the "leftist" media she sure never shut her mouth. In fact she built a career off of it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:06pm

32. One can only dream.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 9:48pm

    So the person who not less than a week ago was complaining because he said all liberals want Republicans to go away so they can have free reign over the country. You are one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever met. You can't keep your facts straight from one post to another.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:07pm

33. zmann, the only thing the far left is concerned about is control. There's nothing "genuine" about them.

    Posted by ACook at 05/11/2009 @ 8:16pm

    Yeah, and the far rights intentions are perfectly pure ACook. They don't want control AT all. JESUS you people need to take your meds or if you don't have any you need to be put on some. You have bought into BS lies. Do you even have a brain of your own or are you just directly connected to the textbook of right wingnut answers? Same goes for all you lefties out there who say the right is trying to turn this country into a fascist nation.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:10pm

34. They'd prefer something more uniform, more distilled, more....fascist...on the airwaves, so the lemmings don't stray too far from the pen Hannity / Beck / Limbaugh build for them.

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:18pm

    If that ever happened I WOULD believe in God because a small piece of Hell would have just revealed itself on Earth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:51pm

35. "I suspect you do indeed care whether lives were saved or not Darla. But you would still be against the means. That's your high road. I think that road is a lot harder to travel when you actually own some responsibility.

    Do you think this will be prosecuted?"

    the laws are quite clear on the matter of waterboarding, and the US has used such laws to prosecute others.

    there are mountains of evidence, documentation and testimony of the US using waterboarding and other treatments which violate said laws.

    the US also sodomized children, in front of their mothers, at abu ghraib. the pentagon has the tape, but there is first hand testimony + documentation.

    given what we know, prosecutions must move forward, otherwise, the united states cannot, in good faith, prosecute other countries for torture.

    acook, just because you don't have to worry about this, doesn't mean torture is legal. strange that you DO have time to blog, though.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 11:24pm

36. freiheit, it is not the "high road" to follow the law. especially torture laws.

    if i j-walk, i can get ticketed. if i throw a rock into someone's window, and hurt a child, i will go to prison.

    if i take LSD and steal a car, i goto prison.

    if you torture...........

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 11:25pm

37. conservatives just love laws, right?

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 11:26pm

38. talk about acook being distracted (ironically).....because most americans have been distracted BY THE MEDIA into thinking that

    waterboarding is legal......

    it's ILLEGAL. and a FELONY.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/11/2009 @ 11:28pm

39. You mean if I make cHeney squeal like a pig, but he then reveals that he let 9/11 happen-- I go to jail? I'm a bad apple...

    But if cHeney conspires to get others to torture... he has a free ticket!?!?! He's a big banana.

    But doesn't that make our country just a...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 12:21am

40. This whole thing is completely unbelievable. Bush, Cheney and the rethugs cram Iraq down everyone's throats as well as their wire tapping and torture fiascos and now they want to blame Pelosi for their horseshit?! Completely unbelievable.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 05:55am

41. Posted by apoorspic at 05/11/2009 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    It's she knew, not she new.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 06:31am

42. Same goes for all you lefties out there who say the right is trying to turn this country into a fascist nation.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:10pm

    When people like Cheney and Bush crap all over the constitution, and chip away at the rights of citizens of this country while furthering their partners in big business, I don't know what you'd call that, but it sure as hell isn't a republic or democracy.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 06:36am

43. Okay, I couldn't make it past the first sentence. Here's the claim the blurb writer put under the headline on the home page:

    "Republicans seek to blame House Speaker for waterboarding. She should call their bluff and agree to testify on whether she was lied to. John Nichols"

    Talk about shoddy journalism... This is a disgrace. This isn't even close to journalism-- this is political propaganda designed to whip the "true believers" into a frenzy of partisan commitment.

    Nobody is saying it was Pelosi's idea to waterboard. Nobody is saying that they asked her permission. What people are saying is that she is a hypocrite for pretending "she didn't know" when she did.

    But then Nichols has the gall to start off his article by quoting Stone's critique at journalism?

    That is appalling.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 06:41am

44. Posted by freiheit1 at 05/11/2009 @ 4:35pm

    If, maybe...

    you guys posit scenarios that do not exist to justify torture. It is sad, it is against American values and against the law. Saint Reagan signed the law, why question Him on that while worshiping him for so much other stuff he didn't do? (lowering taxes, reducing the size of govt etc)

    ---

    I more pressing issues concerning my family, especially my family in Detroit.

    Posted by ACook at 05/11/2009 @ 8:12pm |

    Your conservative friends have dissed your Detroit family and will continue to do so. They have nothing but disdain for minorities and union members.

    ----

    OK, here is the deal..

    ACOOK, and ANTI have family in the military. From what they post here, they would have ZERO problems with the Iranian govt nabbing them off the street, holding them for years and torturing them., That is the standard set by the "freedom loving Americans" called neo-conservatives. Law means nothing, morals are fluid. All that matters is that someone be AFRAID!!! Then all things are open for "debate". That is what this boils down to. The civilian leaders (including the "liberals in the CIA [ which anti is defending after he derided them for years!!!]) have said this much in public "We were afraid, so we used "harsh interrogation techniques" .

    Got that?

    "We were afraid. so we ignored the law, we ignored the moral underpinnings established after WWII, we tortured people because we were afraid"

    This from the tough side of the isle.

    Not an ounce of proof that it foiled a SINGLE attack against the US. Not a single ounce of proof that other methods could not have been used to gain intel. There is proof that these policies led to the death of Americans, told to us by career military interrogators.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/12/2009 @ 06:55am

45. And the liberals just need to quit altogether.

    Posted by ACook at 05/11/2009 @ 8:55pm

    One can only dream.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 9:48pm

    or put your money where your fingers are... leave .

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/12/2009 @ 06:59am

46. "There is simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his nuclear weapons programs"-Dick Cheney.

    ---

    The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." [Dick Cheney, Vice Presidential Debate, 10/5/04]

    FACT: Cheney Had Met Edwards on At Least Three Prior Occasions

    ----

    "Did it produce the desired results? I think it did. I think, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the number three man in al-Qaeda, the man who planned the attacks of 9/11, provided us with a wealth of information. There was a period of time there, three or four years ago, when about half of everything we knew about al-Qaeda came from that one source."

    a former senior CIA official, who read all the interrogation reports from KSM's torture in secret CIA custody, explained that "90 percent of it was total fucking bullshit," and a former Pentagon analyst added, "KSM produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were."

    So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls "enhanced techniques"?

    "I'm really reluctant to answer that," Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: "I don't believe that has been the case."

    ---

    Why do you continue to follow a guy that has a record of lying to you about these topics?

    Fear.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/12/2009 @ 07:05am

47. Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 4:30pm

    Larry, thanks for the answer yesterday. The reason I asked about comparing homosexuals and divorced people is because my cousin is dating a divorced woman. Her brother tells her the only way to truely repent is to remarry her first husband. She's protestant, so the church didn't annul the first marriage.

    If you don't ever want to live or have sex with your first wife ever again, that's okay, I guess, but every time you have sex with your second wife, you are committing adultery because she's not really your wife.

    That's where I'm confused.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 07:08am

48. BTW, anybody noticed that our local right-wingers are...

    calling Dubya a liar?

    They're all happily using the term "torture" and not "intensive interrogation"...frequently in fact.

    But GWB said "We don't torture"...so I guess they're admitting he was LYING, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 08:09am

49. Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 08:09am

    I think we have just fallen victim to to the classic propaganda technique of framing the debate. I actually caught myself this morning when I wrote: "Nobody is saying it was Pelosi's idea to waterboard." The first time I typed it, I had "tortue" instead of "waterboad" because so many here use the terms interchangably that I have fallen victim to allowing the opponet to frame the debate.

    Bush had competent legal opinions saying waterboarding is not torture. Othere disagree, and I will redouble my efforts to remain vigilent as to not fall for this cheap debating trick.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 08:31am

50. 'Before the Trumpet - Young Franklin Roosevelt' by Geoffrey C. Ward, 1985, Harper & Row, pages 183-184:

    'Pumping was dreaded more, imposed before the entire school [Groton] with the tacit sanction of the rector and only after a solemn, drawn-out ceremony that made its cruelty all the more excruciating for the victim. ... "the fourth formers seized him and rushed him down the back stairs to the cellar, where he was turned upside-down and held under the gush of a faucet - the water power was excellent - until he had almost fainted" ... Having suffered all the initial sensations of drowning, still retching and gasping, he was then asked if he fully understood the seriousness of his offense, and if he failed to be properly enthusiastic ... the tap was turned on a second time... The next fall he [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] reported, "You will be pleased to hear that George Cabot Ward Low has been pumped, & a pretty sight he was! He left off swaggering immediately!"...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/12/2009 @ 09:02am

51. '...no one wanted to look behind the curtain...' -- Dave Zirin -- The Nation -- http://www.t henation.com/doc/2 0090525/zi rin?rel=hp_currently

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/12/2009 @ 09:03am

52. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 08:31am

    That's one theory.

    Another may be that it IS torture, you guys have no problem with it BEING torture, and you're just speaking the truth.

    And Dubya wasn't.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:04am

53. BTW, Sean Hannity volunteered, for a charitable donation, over a week ago to be waterboarded to prove that it was "no big deal"...

    yet he's still a no show?!?!??!??

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:06am

54. The question remains. What did Pelosi know and when did she know it.

    Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 09:06am

55. So the person who not less than a week ago was complaining because he said all liberals want Republicans to go away so they can have free reign over the country. You are one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever met. You can't keep your facts straight from one post to another.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:07pm

    No I inserted that comment purposely to trigger a response from you and a few others.

    I did so because you and the other leftists (some more than others), constantly call for the elimination of conservativism unless we abandon our principles and adopt liberalism.

    I have always called for an open debate of ideas and believe fully that by presenting the American people with contrasting views on how to move America forward, Americans can only benefit.

    Unfortunately, we seldom have that.

    1. there seem to be fewer articulate voices in Conservative politics today (for whatever reason-my own suspicion is that this is a natural result of decades of far left teaching in public schools).

    2. The overwhelming liberal bias in the MSM. Daily I watch the subtle use of word play and omissions during so-called "news reporting" on the MSM. It's why I monitor the worst offender, MSNBC as my primary news station. They hourly utilize phrasing in their reporting that is 100% slanted against all views other than liberalism.

    So, your charge of hypocrisy is because you leap so quickly where your immature mind wants to go.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 09:13am

56. The new con repub philosophy is not to moderate extreme views to keep feeding them shit: some actually like it already, others will grow accustom to the taste, some will eventually think it's ok for others to eat it, and only a few will call it what it is and we'll call them extremist.

    And eventually even progressives will believe it if new con repubs-- stay the shitty course...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 09:23am

57. Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 09:

    Absolutely. Seems fair enough. Pelosi forced to resign for not objecting to BUSH and CHENEY's illegal policies...

    and given that admission, Bush and Cheney prosecuted for breaking the law.

    Sounds like we have an accord, abell???

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:36am

58. So, your charge of hypocrisy is because you leap so quickly where your immature mind wants to go.-----Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 09:13am

    "however leftist bigots tend to stereotype Republicans by those kind of images so as to reinforce their own bigotry"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:41am

    Since most liberals are mealy mouthed, they think that is a good trait. they resent strong authority figures.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:09am

    Cheney Joins Grand Old Party of Limbaugh posted by John Nichols on 05/10/2009 @ 12:39pm

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:37am

59. Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 09:29am

    Google up "Hannity Charles Grodin waterboarding"....he said he'd volunteer for it just to show it was no big deal.

    Naturally, he's balking and trying to pretend it never happened.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:39am

60. So, your charge of hypocrisy is because you leap so quickly where your immature mind wants to go.-----Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 09:13am

    "however leftist bigots tend to stereotype Republicans by those kind of images so as to reinforce their own bigotry"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:41am

    Since most liberals are mealy mouthed, they think that is a good trait. they resent strong authority figures.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:09am

    Cheney Joins Grand Old Party of Limbaugh posted by John Nichols on 05/10/2009 @ 12:39pm

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:37am

    That was no quick leap on my part. I represents about 50 years of observing liberals.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 09:49am

61. Of course, Larry.

    It's "okay" for YOU to stereotype.

    You're divinely inspired or something, right?

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:52am

62. "The overwhelming liberal bias in the MSM"

    anyone with even a shred of education in media studies knows that the above statement is patently false.

    the seven major conglomerates, and their numerous media subsidiaries, have no interest in challenging the status quo: from our disastrous presence in iraq and afghanistan, to workers' rights, to global warming.

    the "overwhelmingly liberal" MSM has led americans to believe that there is doubt about: whether humans are causing global warming (they are); whether waterboading is torture (it is); whether hussein had WMDs (he didn't); etc, etc.

    a NYT report from last year, which won the pulitzer prize, showed that the pentagon was planting operatives across the network and cable shows, to buttress its case to invade iraq.

    however, NOT A SINGLE news program covered the story after its author was awarded the pulitzer. obviously, they didn't want to implicate themselves in the propaganda program, so they avoided it completely.

    anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who believes that the MSM is "overwhelmingly liberal" needs an education in media studies. it's as simple as that.

    it's like saying "the earth is just going through a warming cycle" when 99.7% of scientists know that humans are causing the warming.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:05am

63. "there seem to be fewer articulate voices in Conservative politics today (for whatever reason-my own suspicion is that this is a natural result of decades of far left teaching in public schools)"

    probably because bush destroyed the party by allowing the anti-science christians to run it.

    how can you trust a party on science when they don't embrace it?

    how "overwhelmingly liberal" of our MSM to actually lead americans to believe that there is some doubt about........EVOLUTION? WTF?!

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:08am

64. that show The View actually had a "debate" the other day about evolution.

    so liberal, that show.....

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:08am

65. "far left teaching" = not telling students that columbus was the greatest explorer EVER

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:10am

66. i ask my conservative colleagues to consider this:

    you go after pelosi for knowing about torture, and not doing anything about it, while also believing that torture acquired good intelligence and saved american lives.

    so, is pelosi a hero or a criminal?

    which is it?

    oh, our "overwhelming liberal" MSM would like us to know how bad nancy pelosi is, and how awesome dick cheney is.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:19am

67. anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who believes that the MSM is "overwhelmingly liberal" needs an education in media studies. it's as simple as that.

    it's like saying "the earth is just going through a warming cycle" when 99.7% of scientists know that humans are causing the warming.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:05am

    Darla, the fact that you openly acknowledge yourself to be a socialist places you at the fringes of American society. It is not surprising that you would make that assumption.

    I am making my statements based upon having the years to have made the first hand observation of how the media has changed over the past 50 years.

    There is no question that the media has moved to the left in comparison to the 50's and 60's.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 10:20am

68. Bush had competent legal opinions saying waterboarding is not torture. Othere disagree, and I will redouble my efforts to remain vigilent as to not fall for this cheap debating trick.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 08:31am |

    Durwood, You use the term competent quite liberally don't you?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 10:29am

69. Sounds like we have an accord, abell???

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:36am

    What's funny about this is how fast these guys want to drag the speaker of the house in front of an inquiry, but not the guys at the top calling the shots.

    If Pelosi knew about it, then she should be held accountable, but the rest of the Bush administration right down to the lawyers and appointed judges over riding or should I saw overwriting or rewriting the law to their fancy.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 10:34am

70. "There is no question that the media has moved to the left in comparison to the 50's and 60's."

    whoa there buckaroo, looks like you took a few steps backward from your original claim.

    and even so, i'm not sure i would agree with this claim either.

    like i said, the media has no implicit or explicit concern with pushing the country to the left.

    and btw, you can't just say something without backing it up with evidence.

    you just "feel" that the MSM is liberal, but you don't know, because you don't bother to think it through, find the evidence, and make a cogent argument.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:38am

71. "Bush had competent legal opinions saying waterboarding is not torture"

    (quote of the week)

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:39am

72. btw, darin, one can have the opinion that X does not equal X, but that doesn't make it "competent."

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:40am

73. waterboarding is waterboarding. either you perform it or you don't. there is no other way to perform waterboarding other than.......performing waterboarding.

    and if you perform waterboarding, you are in violation of the GC and the CAT.

    it's that simple. there is no doubt about it. the US performed it hundreds of times, and worse.

    there is video, witnesses, first hand accounts, mountains of evidence, etc.

    there is no DOUBT, ok?

    again, our "overwhelmingly liberal" MSM leading americans to believe that there is some doubt.

    there is no doubt.

    and it doesn't matter if "pelosi knew."

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:42am

74. t's like saying "the earth is just going through a warming cycle" when 99.7% of scientists know that humans are causing the warming.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:05am

    Darla, That's the trick. Get that .3% to side with you and you can refute anything....for example, waterboarding isn't torture. The Bush administration hand picked lawyers for the justice department via their cronies (Gonzo anyone) and there you have it.

    I'll bet you could pay many attornies enough to write a challenge that murder under certain circumstances would be justified. For example, say some guy won't talk, but if you threaten to kill his family, he will talk, then for the good of everyone, it's completely legal to kill or torture his family if he doesn't talk. Same logic as the present torture argument put forth by the neocons and bloodythirsty cowards.

    If A is illegal, but I want result B and the only way I can get result B is to use approach A, and I deem that it's necessary and expedient, then I can do A.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 10:43am

75. yes, our "overwhelmingly liberal" MSM, which has dick cheney on almost every other day, getting lobbed softball questions.....

    which has numerous "liberal" pundits debating whether waterboarding is torture.

    whether global warming is anthropogenic.

    whether evolution is a fact.....

    sheesh, how stupid this country is.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:44am

76. wolfgang, very true, and every argument being put forth by the conservatives ("we were scared after 9.11," or "we were trying to protect the country")....has been used by some awful dictator in the past.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:49am

77. i highly recommend everyone read both the GC and the CAT some time.....very interesting documents. and simple to read.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:52am

78. "1. there seem to be fewer articulate voices in Conservative politics today (for whatever reason-my own suspicion is that this is a natural result of decades of far left teaching in public schools). "-anti

    Of course, what else could it be?

    You are a piece of work.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/12/2009 @ 10:55am

79. again, our "overwhelmingly liberal" MSM leading americans to believe that there is some doubt.

    there is no doubt.

    and it doesn't matter if "pelosi knew."

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:42am

    Ms Darla, Good job. I'd also like to point out to these folks thinking the media has a libral (liberal) biase that the folks who own these networks aren't exactly the tree hugging back to nature types, nor are they in any dire straights of losing their medical care, homes, etc.

    Their bread is buttered mostly by the republican party. It's amazing that a small minority of the population (the rich) can fool so much of the working population into thinking that 1) The working population is rich and those unemployed people are their enemy, 2) That giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires is going to help the economy 3) That the U.S. military is doing noble causes IN OTHER COUNTRIES WE AREN"T AT WAR WITH. Our military is being used to protect business ventures in other countries plane and simple. This patriotic crap the rethugs keep spewing forth is a huge line of roughage.

    But, I digress, the media outlets including most newspapers are business oriented, not citizen oriented and usually those two are at odds.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 10:56am

80. this just in: obama is blackmailing the british govnt to prevent the release of torture evidence....by saying:

    "The United States Government's position is that, if the redacted paragraphs are made public, then the United States will re-evaluate its intelligence-sharing relationship with the United Kingdom with the real risk that it would reduce the intelligence it provided (para. 62) . . . . [and] there is a real risk, if we restored the redacted paragraphs, the United States Government, by its review of the shared intelligence arrangements, could inflict on the citizens of the United Kingdom a very considerable increase in the dangers they face at a time when a serious terrorist threat still pertains (para. 106)."

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:56am

81. let me repeat that: obama is apparently threatening the british government by withholding intelligence (which could protect british citizens) if the british govnt releases evidence of torture, done by the US, on one of its citizens......

    HOLY CRAP!

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:03am

82. Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:02am

    oh, man, that's depressing.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:06am

83. Another may be that [waterboarding] IS torture, you guys have no problem with it BEING torture, and you're just speaking the truth.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:04am

    I watched Pan's Labyrinth with the family this weekend. It was rated "R" but so was Schindler's List so I figured it's be OK. My 10-year old didn't finish the movie. When the captain was showing the captured resistance fighter the implements of torture he got nervous and left.

    I think it would benefit you to remember what real torture is. Waterboarding is unpleasant, but it's not torture.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 11:10am

84. Again, seems like a fair deal.

    The Right wants Pelosi "in on it"....so, she resigns over not publically OBJECTING to Bush and Cheney's illegal policies.

    And they get prosecuted for IMPLEMENTING the illegal policies.

    Seems like a good bipartisan solution, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:15am

85. Just a quick question since this seems to come up a lot on these threads: If our mainstream media is so liberal, why don't they call Cheney out on his bullshit? There's a laundry list of debunked Bush administration lies to pick from and reference in a "why should we believe you now?" Q+A session. Why do they have him on their shows anyway? Why haven't they responded to or even reported on the Pullitzer prize winning journalism on Pentagon propaganda efforts to build support for the Iraq war in the MSM? Why do we still not see any real voices of dissent on the escalation in Afghanistan? Why did they fire Phil Donahue for having anti-war voices in his panel discussions prior to the Iraq invasion?

    Posted by HAL9000 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:16am

86. that show The View actually had a "debate" the other day about evolution.

    so liberal, that show.....

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 10:08am

    Yeah, I caught some clips. Joy Behr say any parent who teaches their child the theory of creationism is guilty of child abuse.

    You let me know when Hannity says any person who tells their child they have a right to healthcare is guilty of child abuse.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 11:18am

87. So to be clear, The View didn't debate evolution as Darla claimed, they debated wheter people who believe in creationism should be put in jail for believing the wrong things.

    So yeah, that is pretty Liberal.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 11:20am

88. Do I have to remind the larry's and acooks that the right wanted to IMPEACH Clinton for getting a knob shine? By the way, the "but he lied about it" line doesn't hold up so well anymore does it?

    Posted by HAL9000 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:21am

89. HOLY CRAP!

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:03am |

    Darla, This isn't too surprising. Obama has tried to slow down, impede and do anything else he can to stop any type of investigation into the torture thing. He's been anything but forthcoming on this subject.

    As I've said before, even if Cheney, Bush or someone else in the government is found guilty of any war crimes due this torture business, Obama will pardon them.

    It's the you back me, I'll back you game plus it gets him more votes for 2012. If he can semi level off the economy and stave off any major happenings against the former administration, he's thinking he'll get even more swing votes next go around. Don't forget that a politician's first loyalty is to themselves.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:25am

90. protection from cruel and unusual punishment is included in the eight ammendment

    Posted by DA7888 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:29am

91. protection from cruel and unusual punishment is included in the eight ammendment

    Posted by DA7888 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:30am

92. "Waterboarding is unpleasant, but it's not torture"

    so "unpleasant" is waterboarding that the united states prosecuted and executed japanese soldiers who used waterboarding on americans during WWII.

    i guess waterboarding is "unpleasant" enough to constitute torture for americans.

    but when americans use it on others? not torture. just "unpleasant."

    "So to be clear, The View didn't debate evolution as Darla claimed"

    they didn't debate evolution, per se, but they DID ostensibly lend credence to "creationism" by saying it should constitute "protected speech."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNKaIOv5yMI

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:31am

93. waterboarding is unpleasant. i love it.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:34am

94. Do I have to remind the larry's and acooks that the right wanted to IMPEACH Clinton for getting a knob shine? By the way, the "but he lied about it" line doesn't hold up so well anymore does it?

    Posted by HAL9000 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:21am

    No, I was going to bring this up as I brought it up before. You can only accomplish a few things. Will it be healthcare reform or will it be wasting all of your political capital trying to prosecute Bush and Cheney for disagreements over legal definitions of torture?

    Enthusiastically supporting impeachment is one of the dumbest things I ever did. Yeah I hated Clinton (which was pretty dumb also), but most of the rest of the country didn't hate him for committing perjury the way I did. Assuming a senate conviction would make the rest of the country hate him too was just plain fucking stupid.

    Three-fourths of the country disaprove of the job Bush and Cheney did. But only about one-quarter hate him. The middle 50% already know about you disagreement over the definition of torture and they don't care. Show trials won't make them care. Show trials wont make them hate like you tell yourselves they will.

    Show trials will only squander your political capital.

    Finally, I'm confused by this remark, "By the way, the 'but he lied about it' line doesn't hold up so well anymore does it?"

    Clinton surrendered his law license for 5 years and admitted that he committed perjury. I think it still holds up pretty well.

    Despite the echo chamber of The Nation, Bush hasn't adimted any lies, nor have any been proven: there are still only diagreements over policy and legal definitons.

    You'd do well to remember that.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 11:36am

95. protection from cruel and unusual punishment is included in the eight ammendment

    Posted by DA7888 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:29am

    Waterboarding isn't used for punishment. It is used to extract information from enemies intent on the US's destruction and murder of her citizens.

    See the difference?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 11:39am

96. Do I have to remind the larry's and acooks that the right wanted to IMPEACH Clinton for getting a knob shine? By the way, the "but he lied about it" line doesn't hold up so well anymore does it? Posted by HAL9000

    Sure it does.

    Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 11:43am

97. "Yeah, I caught some clips. Joy Behr say any parent who teaches their child the theory of creationism is guilty of child abuse."

    oh no! did she really say that?! oh god, what a whore!

    btw, what's the "theory" of creationism?

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:43am

98. Posted by crabwalk at 05/12/2009 @ 06:55am

    Crabbie-claus, this so-called investigation into who did what, why, or how, means very little to me when I have family members are currently unemployed.

    What happends in Washington won't get my siblings any closer to finding work, or in the case of two of them, getting out of forclosure.

    Posted by ACook at 05/12/2009 @ 11:43am

99. "Waterboarding isn't used for punishment"

    dumbest thing i've read all day

    " trying to prosecute Bush and Cheney for disagreements over legal definitions of torture?"

    proves my point about the "overwhelmingly liberal MSM".

    hint to darin: THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT on torture. X = X.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:46am

100. "What happends in Washington won't get my siblings any closer to finding work, or in the case of two of them, getting out of forclosure."

     this person clearly has time for blogging, but not time to think about whether torture is a crime?

     amazing. glad you're helping out your siblings by blogging this morning....

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:47am

101. THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT on torture. X = X. Posted by darladoon

     Bullshit. I think reading your posts are torture. You probably think they are sane and rationale.

     Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 11:48am

102. "Despite the echo chamber of The Nation, Bush hasn't adimted any lies, nor have any been proven: there are still only diagreements over policy and legal definitons"

     second dumbest thing i've read all day.

     sure, the "echo chamber" is at the nation, but not in the MSM, where they'd like you to think that there are "legal disagreements" about torture.

     there are no disagreements, darin. the law is clear.

     and bush lied so many times it makes my head hurt:

     "we don't torture"

     "we are getting the required warrants for wiretaps"

     "hussein sought yellowcake from niger"

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:50am

103. Do I have to remind the larry's and acooks that the right wanted to IMPEACH Clinton for getting a knob shine? By the way, the "but he lied about it" line doesn't hold up so well anymore does it?

     Posted by HAL9000 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:21am

     No they didn't. He was impeached and later disbarred for perjury.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:53am

104. "hussein sought yellowcake from niger" Posted by darladoo

     Yeah he had tons and tons of it already so why get more yellowcake from Niger.

     Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 11:53am

105. "Bullshit. I think reading your posts are torture"

     drowning someone, to a point where they nearly die (and many have died), and have to confess to crimes they didn't commit, isn't torture?

     ok

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:54am

106. who has died from U.S. waterboarding?

     Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 11:56am

107. "Yeah he had tons and tons of it already so why get more yellowcake from Niger"

     first, this point is demonstrably false. second, even if it were true, bush's claim is still false.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:56am

108. "Yeah he had tons and tons of it already so why get more yellowcake from Niger"

     That is true. It was on CNN. They transferred it all to Canada.

     Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 11:59am

109. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipJWtiKvlGBuDdP_W9UX-sRlukCQ

     Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 12:01pm

110. abell, on the ignore list for sheer inanity...

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 12:03pm

111. See, breaks down like this (from the Right)...

     1. "It isn't torture...it's 'intensive interrogation'!"

     2. "Who cares if it's torture?"

     3. "Bush and Cheney did nothing illegal!"

     4. "Pelosi was in on the crime!"

     5. "Torture saves lives, but we can't prove it, but Dick Cheney the guy who may be criminally responsible says so, therefore it's likely true!"

     6. "We're tough on crime!"

     Oh and 7. "Clinton's crime was greater...he lied about having a girlfriend in a court case that was later dismissed!"

     Easy, huh?

     Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 12:03pm

112. who has died from U.S. waterboarding?

     Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 11:56am

     abell, People don't die from having things shoved under their finger nails and toe nails either. You wouldn't die from somebody breaking all of your fingers, toes, hands, feet etc. if it was done "properly" with a doctor present.

     You can be beaten within an inch of your life, but if you don't die from it, that's not torture?

     Your argument is quite lame on this.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 12:07pm

113. "hussein sought yellowcake from niger"

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:50am

     That's was Wilson put in his report to the CIA after returning from Niger.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 12:16pm

114. You can be beaten within an inch of your life, but if you don't die from it, that's not torture?

     Your argument is quite lame on this.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 12:07pm

     That wasn't his argument. Darla claimed there have been deaths from US waterboarding. But what we've learned so far is that only three people were waterboarded. He was asking which of the three died.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 12:19pm

115. drowning someone, to a point where they nearly die (and many have died), and have to confess to crimes they didn't commit, isn't torture?

     ok

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:54am

     Ok, "many" of the three people died. What are their names?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 12:20pm

116. You think this is bad, wait till the shock treatments going on at the camps in Poland comes out, and how much the Golden Girl and others knew about that.

     Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/12/2009 @ 12:21pm

117. snowbie$$$ is a mole...;^)

     The implication of Democrats is simple... like handing out 'free drugs' at a grade-school, it is evidence of sociopathic motives.

     We all have some 'soul searching' to do about our 'pliability'... but the chain of command responsible for the misrepresentation of the facts, media's complicity, and the administration's lies...

     Needs to become a part of the public record asap...

     For the betterment of our involvement on the international stage as well as our respect and encouragement of Democracy.

     Posted by ttr at 05/12/2009 @ 12:25pm

118. "this person clearly has time for blogging, but not time to think about whether torture is a crime?

     amazing. glad you're helping out your siblings by blogging this morning....

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 11:47am

     I say "so what" Darla, you blog way more than I do. But I have to keep in mind why YOU have so much time to chew the fat with Mask.

     Here's a thought for you, just because I work in ICU doesn't mean I'm on my feet constantly. We nurses are allowed to sit down have a meal of some kind and prepare our care plans for our patients.

     Now, if you'll excuse me I have rounds to make. Later.

     Posted by ACook at 05/12/2009 @ 12:36pm

119. If you don't believe me, would you believe a former Nation contributor?

     http://www.slate.com/id/2146475/

     Case Closed: The truth about the Iraqi-Niger "yellowcake" nexus. By Christopher Hitchens

     I shall quote here, with his permission, from a letter I have received from Ambassador Rolf Ekeus. Ambassador Ekeus, currently high commissioner for national minority questions for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, is a founder of the renowned Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, has been Sweden's envoy both to the United Nations and the United States, and won great acclaim for his effective defanging of Iraq when he was the first chairman of UNSCOM after the first Gulf War in 1992. (When it was proposed 10 years later that the U.N. inspectors be sent back to Iraq, Kofi Annan actually renominated Ekeus for the job but was overruled by France and Russia, who wanted the more conciliatory Hans Blix.)

     [hey didn't I write something about France and Russia being involved with undermining sanctions because of bribes from the UN Oil for Food program? never mind.]

     Continued...

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 12:38pm

120. [From Ekeus' letter]

     One of my colleagues remembers Zahawie as Iraq's delegate to the IAEA General Conference during the years 1982-84. One item on the agenda was the diplomatic and political fall-out of Israel's destruction of the Osirak reactor ... His participation as leader of the Iraqi delegation to the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference merely confirms his standing as Iraq's top negotiator on nuclear weapons issues.

     [Zahawie] confirms that he was Iraq's ambassador to the Vatican...

     Zahawie furthermore confirms his trip to Niger. The question remains, why Iraq's top man on nuclear weapons diplomacy and negotiations would travel to Niger: with all respect, not the dream-place for a connoisseur of Mozart and Italian bel canto, though no longer of Wagner.

     [This is now Hitchen commenting]

     (Ambassador Ekeus' allusion in that last sentence is to Zahawie's affecting claim that he was posted to Rome in virtual semiretirement and mainly for the music. This is as credible as his claim, made to Hassan Fattah--then of Time magazine--that when he visited Niger he did not know that it exported yellowcake--which is famously just about the only thing that it does export.)

     [Darin TBFT here]

     Wilsaon asked about Zahawie's visit and the guy in Niger he talked to confirmed Zahawie asked about yellowcake but told him there was nothing he could do so Wilson dismissed it as a non-credible risk even though Zahawie "sought".

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 12:38pm

121. Posted by ACook at 05/12/2009 @ 12:36pm

     Unfortunately DARLA, ACOOK's relationship with the truth is now in serious question, as noted over on the "New US General vs Taliban" thread...

     where she blatently lied.

     Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 12:40pm

122. darin, you need to read more. i highly recommend the ICRC torture report, as well as this report by mark danner. not only have we been waterboarding numerous suspects, but we have used numerous other torture techniques. yes, at least 100 prisoners have died while in US custody, because of extreme brutality.

     http://www.markdanner.com/articles/show/151

     what you, and others, are reading in the media only scrapes the very surface.

     i read another report recently which shows (in video and audio) US soldiers sodomizing children in front of their mothers @ abu ghraib. seymour hersh first reported this....

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 12:45pm

123. waterboarding is extreme brutality. in the media, you're likely to hear that it "simulates drowning. " it doesn't simulate drowning. it IS drowning. you are essentially suffocating to death. it's EXTREMELY painful and horrific.

     that darin describes it as "unpleasant" automatically disqualifies him from talking about it, among other things.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 12:49pm

124. re: The new con repub philosophy is not to moderate their own extreme views, but rather to keep feeding us, 'We the people', the shit-- because:

     1. some actually like it already,

     2. others will grow accustom to the taste,

     3. some will eventually think it's ok for others to eat it,

     4. only a very few will call it what it is, and

     5. the new con repubs will continually call those very few of us, 'We the people' defenders, the extremist.

     Eventually even progressives will eat it up, if new con repubs-- successfully stay their shitty course...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 09:23am

     But still, don't eat it. It'll take discipline and practice, but it's doable. The new con repub philosophy has failed to be nutritious and cannot be absorbed by our way of life; it was always meant to be flushed away. Push the lever down and away; practice that. Push the lever down and away, hear it flush-- spiral down taking the new con repub philosophy stench with it. Again, reach for the lever and push down; practice that. Intend your arm to rise up to push the lever down and flush. The craving will go away.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 12:52pm

125. from abu z:

     "After the beating I was then placed in the small box. They placed a cloth or cover over the box to cut out all light and restrict my air supply. As it was not high enough even to sit upright, I had to crouch down. It was very difficult because of my wounds. The stress on my legs held in this position meant my wounds both in the leg and stomach became very painful. I think this occurred about 3 months after my last operation. It was always cold in the room, but when the cover was placed over the box it made it hot and sweaty inside. The wound on my leg began to open and started to bleed. I don't know how long I remained in the small box, I think I may have slept or maybe fainted. I was then dragged from the small box, unable to walk properly and put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts. A black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral water bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe. After a few minutes the cloth was removed and the bed was rotated into an upright position. The pressure of the straps on my wounds was very painful. I vomited. The bed was then again lowered to horizontal position and the same torture carried out again with the black cloth over my face and water poured on from a bottle. On this occasion my head was in a more backward, downwards position and the water was poured on for a longer time. I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was hopeless. I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine when under stress......"

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 12:54pm

126. Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 12:54pm

     If you thinks that's bad, you should read the accounts of the people who were trapped inside the twin towers on 9/11 who were injured and could breath from all the smoke from below.

     Wait a minute, you can't read them because they are all dead.

     If a US official beleives waterboarding will prevent more death's I'm include to give him the benefit of the doubt rather than you.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 1:02pm

127. I've got to slow down.

     that should be can't breath instead of can

     and should be inclined to give instead of include

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 1:04pm

128. "if you thinks that's bad, you should read the accounts of the people who were trapped inside the twin towers on 9/11 who were injured and could breath from all the smoke from below."

     yeah, and? this is called a non-sequitur.

     darin, waterboarding is torture, it's illegal, and those who perform or authorize it are criminals.

     these people in the twin towers weren't "tortured," they were murdered. and the perpetrators are dead.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 1:10pm

129. Darin tBFT, BtW did you miss this too:

     You mean if I make cHeney squeal like a pig, but he then reveals that he let 9/11 happen-- I go to jail? I'm a bad apple...

     But if cHeney conspires to get others to torture... he has a free ticket!?!?! He's a big banana.

     But doesn't that make our country just a...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 12:21am

     Does a dic'tatorslip even count as a banana republic or just a banana republican?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 1:11pm

130. Ok so Pelosi gets a year, hsuB gets 5, cHeney gets 15.

     There, lets get started.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 1:13pm

131. So if I bend someone's finger backwards, causing them excruciating pain, for the purposes of obtaining information, but I don't actually break the finger, that is not torture?

     And if it is not torture, as waterboarding must not torture then, why don't we start using this and other such methods on all potential criminals who have information that we need or to elicit confessions of guilt? It would save us a lot of court time and money.

     Posted by !immutable at 05/12/2009 @ 1:33pm

132. An exercise in futile subjectivism. Lots of name calling, no body blows or slam dunks.

     A fun read, but headache inducing.

     Posted by ficheye at 05/12/2009 @ 1:49pm

133. If a US official beleives waterboarding will prevent more death's I'm include to give him the benefit of the doubt rather than you.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009

     Curious, Darin. If a "US official" believes that a single-payer health care plan from the Government will "prevent more deaths"...

     no bennie of the doubt, right???

     Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 2:04pm

134. "If a US official beleives waterboarding will prevent more deaths ...."

     it astounds me that otherwise rational people can't seem to understand what the law says.

     waterboarding is ILLEGAL, even if it will prevent more deaths.

     can't you understand that?

     the GC and the CAT specifically state that there are no exceptions to the law, even if breaking the law will prevent more deaths.

     it's like someone said, "if i rob a bank and pay off all my bills......it's still robbing a bank."

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 2:10pm

135. spiral down taking the new con repub philosophy stench with it. Again, reach for the lever and push down; practice that. Intend your arm to rise up to push the lever down and flush. The craving will go away.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 12:52pm

     It may indeed go down the drain, but the stench will remain for a very long, long time.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 2:12pm

136. Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 2:04pm

     OK, that was clever. I have to give you that.

     I might even concede that single payor will increase life expectancy. But as I've said before, I don't believe the purpose of healthcare is to keep you alive as long as possible. I think the function of healthcare is to help you live your life in the way you choose.

     For instance, we could arrest all the smokers and fat people and throw them in prison a force them/us to not smoke and eat healthy. Because this would increase life expectancy, you could say the US government is justified in doing it because it is healthcare. (Not that the US Constitution lists healthcare as a permissible function of the federal government, but your friends support it nonetheless.)

     I don't think the purpose of healthcare is to force people to quit smoking or lose weight. It can help them if they choose, but it has no business making the choices for them.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 2:17pm

137. If a US official beleives waterboarding will prevent more death's I'm include to give him the benefit of the doubt rather than you.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 1:02pm

     Durwood, Aside from torture being illegal, here's some more food for thought. Just suppose, for a moment, that some of these high level AQ prisoners aren't as dumb as a fence post. Even if they are being tortured, has it ever occurred to you that they may have already prefabricated lies to tell the folks trying to get info out of them?

     It's kind of like the last laugh. Sure, they get tortured, but they send U.S intelligence agents on wild goose chases that seem plausible, but don't pan out. After a while, if they mix enough lies in with the truth, the agents will be running in circles. If you knew someone was going to waterboard or torture you, and you knew if you gave them some info they'd stop, you'd throw anything out there that would sound credible to make them stop. The irony here could be that prefabricated lies would actually stall the intelligence gathering, not help it.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 2:22pm

138. Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 2:10pm

     Darla,

     It's against the law to kick someone's door in, but if it sounds like someone needs my help and I kick the door in and save their life, then it's a good thing that I broke the law.

     Speeding is against the law, but if I've got a child in the back seat bleeding to death and I can't wait for an ambulance and I speed and break the law and save a life, that's a good thing.

     In some contries in Europe it is against the law to fight back to save your life from an attacker.

     AND DRUMROLE PLEASE

     it was against the law for blacks to sit in the front of the bus.

     Hell, it's against the law to injest forbidden herbs. Yet, you are going to lecture me on the law?

     Let's say you are kidnapped and put in a room with two windows, a red button, and a clock counting down from 10 minutes.

     Behind the left window is a room with 250 elementary school children pounding on the doors to get out.

     Behind the right window is a room with a baby in a crib.

     You are told poisionous gas will be released into the two rooms when the clock hits zero.

     If you push the red button the baby will be killed with a gunshot to the head, but the doors will open releasing the 250 children in the other room.

     Do you let them all die or do you murder the baby even though it is against the law?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 2:30pm

139. I might even concede that single payor will increase life expectancy. But as I've said before, I don't believe the purpose of healthcare is to keep you alive as long as possible. I think the function of healthcare is to help you live your life in the way you choose.------Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 2:17pm

     So if somebody has cancer...and has no health insurance...and would like to "live their live in a way that...let's them keep living it"....

     you'd have no objections to some sort of Government health care plan, if that's their only option, right?

     Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 3:11pm

140. If a US official beleives waterboarding will prevent more death's I'm include to give him the benefit of the doubt rather than you. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 1:02pm

     Durwood, Aside from torture being illegal, here's some more food for thought. Just suppose, for a moment, that some of these high level AQ prisoners aren't as dumb as a fence post. Even if they are being tortured, has it ever occurred to you that they may have already prefabricated lies to tell the folks trying to get info out of them?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 2:22pm |

     Didn't the British do something similar in WW II, with at least a couple of it's double agents. Gave one all the wrong info knowing the agent was going to get caught and spill. Then there was the one on a one way mission that when the enemy searched through the dead body found all the wrong info. Must'a worked.

     Yep, knowing the other side will try anything to get info from detainees can be an advantage.

     We're still stuck in Iraq and we still know they had nothing to do with 9/11.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 3:16pm

141. "I think the function of healthcare is to help you live your life in the way you choose"

     like a lot of arguments darin makes, this makes absolutely no sense.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 4:04pm

142. you'd have no objections to some sort of Government health care plan, if that's their only option, right?

     Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 3:11pm

     Hey Mask, let me introduce myself. I Darin_the_Big_fat_Troll. Apparently, you've never read anyting I've written on health care.

     I've written your goal isn't single payor, your goal it universal coverage. The best way to achieve this is to pass a law making it illegal to not buy private coverage if you can afford it and subsidzing the rest.

     So you are correct. I have no objection with some sort of subsidy program, paid for by the government, whereby poor people get help with purchasing care or insurance through the government.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 4:13pm

143. Would it THEN be a sin then, Father?

     Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 2:45pm

     Murdering a baby is definitely a sin. Not murdering a baby and allowing 250 elementary school children die is definitely a sin. Allowing yourself to be kidnapped and put in that position is a sin. Not being able to say the magic words that cause you captors to save everyone is a sin.

     Action is a sin and inaction is a sin. Take your pick.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 4:17pm

144. Do you let them all die or do you murder the baby even though it is against the law?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 2:30pm

     Darin, it's nice to see that your thinking is consistent.

     You are back to your 'it's ok to rape a child if it will stop her/his evil terrorist father from blowing up the Big Apple' canard again.

     Is there room in your thinking for a third option:

     do the hard work of winning hearts and minds, thus preventing the booby trap you describe from ever being built?

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2009 @ 4:27pm

145. "I think the function of healthcare is to help you live your life in the way you choose"

     like a lot of arguments darin makes, this makes absolutely no sense.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/12/2009 @ 4:04pm

     You know, Darla, I think that DTBFT might be on to something.

     Tonight, when I am working the ER and the next person with emphysema (who, though s/he reeks of cigarettes because s/he continues to smoke, adamantly denies doing so) comes in gasping for breath, I'll do my damnedest to make sure that I can send her/him home to poison her/himself again.

     My treatment will include blowing a few thousand dollars on various tests, the most expensive, broad spectrum antibiotics money can buy, stuff like that.

     COPDers are among the meanest patients there are, so I'll probably be roundly abused in the process. Maybe, if all goes well, I will have to intubate that person and institute mechanical ventilation.

     Darin is advocating for what we sarcastically refer to as 'reverse Darwinism,' that is, the imperative that the medical establishment restore a person to some modicum of physiologic balance so that that person may go home and do the same stupid crap all over again.

     But if we don't, dammit, the terr-ists have won.

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2009 @ 4:41pm

146. Your argument is quite lame on this. Posted by Wolfgang1

     I gave no argument but asked a question. Darla said that people died from waterboarding and I asked who.

     And Darla is a loon. She put me on her ignore list for stating facts. Tsk tsk tsk.

     Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2009 @ 4:43pm

147. (Not that the US Constitution lists healthcare as a permissible function of the federal government, but your friends support it nonetheless.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 2:17pm

     Er, I just have say: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,..."

     Notice it does not say 'to promote the elite Wealth-fare'.

     Welfare, i.e. noun, A state of 'health', happiness, and prospering: prosperity, weal1, well-being. Assistance, especially money, food, and other necessities, given to the needy or dispossessed: aid, dole, handout, public assistance, relief.

     Governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need. Also: A contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous.

     And thus: The object of government is the welfare of the people. -- Theodore Roosevelt

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 4:54pm

148. Yeah, but I really like that part about 'forming a more perfect Union'. It's like what would happen if new con repubs weren't constantly screwing things up.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 5:06pm

149. Welfare, i.e. noun, ... Assistance, especially money, food, and other necessities, given to the needy or dispossessed: aid, dole, handout, public assistance, relief.

     That's not what the word "welfare" meant to the founders who wrote the PREAMBLE to the Constitution.

     The preamble to the Constitution describes the Constitution's purpose. The actual body of the Constitution describes the powers and limitations of the Federal government's three branches.

     The power to provide healthcare is not listed as one of the powers of the federal government

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 5:11pm

150. Er, I just have say: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,..."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 4:54pm

     Plus for some reason, you guys always leave off my favorite part:

     ...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

     Now maybe you leave it off because you are confused by the meaning of "Posterity". So let's go to the dictionary:

     posterity –noun 1. succeeding or future generations collectively... 2. all descendants of one person

     I bring this up occasionally in the gay marriage debate over the State's interest in procreation.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 5:29pm

151. That's not what the word "welfare" meant to the founders who wrote the PREAMBLE to the Constitution.

     (So what did it mean to them then? And is your contention that our US Constitution doesn't live in the present time or is it a dead document that is irrelevant today? )

     The preamble to the Constitution describes the Constitution's purpose.

     (So the purpose is to promote for the general Welfare with the powers granted. And then...)

     The actual body of the Constitution describes the powers and limitations of the Federal government's three branches.

     (Does the US Constitution grant the legislative branch the power to create laws and amend the constitution in order to carry out the purpose for which it was created?)

     The power to provide healthcare is not listed as one of the powers of the federal government

     (Are any of the amendments?)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 5:11pm

     PSSST: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general WELFARE of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 5:30pm

152. Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 5:30pm

     I've answered this hundreds of times-You're wrong.

     "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

     "James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:

     "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

     "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton," James Madison, January 21, 1792

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:42pm

153. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:42pm

     PSSST: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general WELFARE of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

     Doesn't sound like there's a limit imposed there. Are any of the limitations enumerated in our US Constitution?

     Or perhaps it left that up to the legislature to create for our welfare as the nation required and EVOLED?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 5:52pm

154. YA THINK.

     No, maybe not.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 5:54pm

155. Or perhaps it left that up to the legislature to create for our welfare as the nation required and EVOLED?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 5:52pm

     McCulloch v Maryland

     the Supreme Court ruled that our govt is one of enumerated powers.

     the Constitution clearly defines all powers not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 by the 10th Amendment

     Amendment X

     The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

     the Constitution is not a living document to be reinterpreted by changing centuries. That is why they provided the amendment process.

     But liberals hate the fact that the constitution is a limiting document. It was clearly meant, as described by the founders to limit the power of the Federal govt.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:58pm

156. the Constitution is not a living document to be reinterpreted by changing centuries. That is why they provided the amendment process.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:58pm

     That is a total contradiction. Not surprising that you think two totally deferent things simultaneously and don't get it.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 6:06pm

157. That is a total contradiction. Not surprising that you think two totally deferent things simultaneously and don't get it.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 6:06pm

     There is no contradiction.

     You claim the constitution to be a living document that is reinterpreted in the light of what you call an "evolving nation".

     But rather than being reinterpreted, the constitution provides a process for the citizens, not govt or judges, to make formal changes via the amendment process as we have done 26 times.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 6:22pm

158. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:58pm

     "McCulloch v Maryland

     the Supreme Court ruled that our govt is one of enumerated powers. "

     I think you have that backwards.

     From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

     "This fundamental case established the following two principles:

     1. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government."

     "3. Marshall supported the Court's opinion textually using the Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective that is within the enumerated powers as long as it is rationally related to the objective and not forbidden by the Constitution. Marshall rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation of the clause, because many of the enumerated powers would be useless. Marshall noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not the limitations.

     For those reasons, the word "necessary" does not refer to the only way of doing something, but rather applies to various procedures for implementing all constitutionally established powers. Marshall wrote: " Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."

     I think you're wrong.

     Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 6:52pm

159. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 4:13pm

     Cool....so you're a liberal (on domestic policy)?

     Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 7:23pm

160. I think you're wrong.

     Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 6:52pm

     Ah, but I'm not.

     <The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.

     The classical statement of a government of enumerated powers is that by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland:

     "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:33pm

161. This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted." Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:33pm

     .............................

     I like the discussion. It truly honors a strange quantum mechanics, and the uncertainty principle in particular. As soon as you look closely at an argument of this nature, it changes before your eyes; not to mention that the variables are constantly in flux.

     Posted by ficheye at 05/12/2009 @ 8:27pm

162. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:33pm

     From another section of the article you quoted:

     "Loose constructionists, on the other hand, feel that the Necessary and Proper Clause expands the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers. It is often known as the "elastic clause" because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it allows; depending on the interpretation, it can be "stretched" to expand the powers of Congress, or allowed to "contract," limiting Congress. In practical usage, the elastic clause has been paired with the commerce clause in particular to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of expansive federal laws."

     And:

     "The Tenth Amendment is cited as constitutional ground denying Congress the right to pass any law it sees fit. However, in the courts, the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause has consistently trumped the arguments of those who claim that the Tenth Amendment should set substantial limits on the power of Congress."

     So in the area of commerce at least, Congress has been acknowledged to be able to expand its powers beyond those strictly enumerated in the Constitution. Would healthcare fall under this? Health insurance would, I imagine. But remember, nothing that Congress does is legally unconstitutional unless a court rules it so; and the Supreme Court can only rule on something that is brought before it, through the lower court system. If a lawsuit never materializes concerning national healthcare, then it could never be ruled unconstitutional, even if it is, which I personally do not think it would be. And even then, a new constitutional amendment providing for Congress to make laws concerning healthcare under the general welfare would solve that problem, yes?

     Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 8:40pm

163. No I inserted that comment purposely to trigger a response from you and a few others.

     I did so because you and the other leftists (some more than others), constantly call for the elimination of conservativism unless we abandon our principles and adopt liberalism.

     I have always called for an open debate of ideas and believe fully that by presenting the American people with contrasting views on how to move America forward, Americans can only benefit.

     Unfortunately, we seldom have that.

     1. there seem to be fewer articulate voices in Conservative politics today (for whatever reason-my own suspicion is that this is a natural result of decades of far left teaching in public schools).

     2. The overwhelming liberal bias in the MSM. Daily I watch the subtle use of word play and omissions during so-called "news reporting" on the MSM. It's why I monitor the worst offender, MSNBC as my primary news station. They hourly utilize phrasing in their reporting that is 100% slanted against all views other than liberalism.

     So, your charge of hypocrisy is because you leap so quickly where your immature mind wants to go.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 09:13am

     "So, your charge of hypocrisy is because you leap so quickly where your immature mind wants to go."

     You're an idiot LVL. I'm sorry there are no two ways about it. You say my mind leapt there because it was immature after you made the claim that you specifically said that because you wanted me to think you were saying that. Wouldn't that mean that I did what you wanted me to which has nothing to do with immaturity?

     On top of that. I have never claimed that conservatives should become liberals. If you noticed above I lamented the downfall of the conservative party.

     Continued

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2009 @ 9:06pm

164. I believe the conservative party is great when it doesn't succumb to it's fringe. As all parties are. I don't like the fringe of the left either. So please. maybe you should learn to read and remember what I write, instead of putting words in my mouth anti. Children do that, adults have this concept called reading comprehension and a good memory.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2009 @ 9:07pm

165. The only one lying is Pelosi. Her problem is she is representing San Fransicko and is caught between a rock and a hard spot. She is not alone, other Dems were briefed with the same material and non were bothered by EITs in the post 9-11 period. This is why the modern day Salem Witch Hunts will go nowhere.

     Posted by pyeatte at 05/12/2009 @ 9:24pm

166. Posted by pyeatte at 05/12/2009 @ 9:24pm

     So Bush wasn't lying when he said "We don't torture"?

     Despite the fact we have alot of right-wing pundits and bloggers here (and elsewhere) who are now using the word "torture" and saying it's okay?

     Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 9:33pm

167. EITs

     Posted by pyeatte at 05/12/2009 @ 9:24pm

     i bet you'd like to do that torturing personally, ¿right?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 9:33pm

168. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2009 @ 9:06pm

     "1. there seem to be fewer articulate voices in Conservative politics today (for whatever reason-my own suspicion is that this is a natural result of decades of far left teaching in public schools). "

     And here I thought conservatives far preferred sending their children to private schools, and constantly try to defund public schools that they don't use. Oh, and they try to undermine legitimate educational subjects such as biology and mock subjects that enhance cultural understanding such as art, music, humanities, and literature.

     "2. The overwhelming liberal bias in the MSM."

     Totally false, and this is one of the biggest lies in politics that has stuck. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true, eh? I intern at a media watchdog group, and trust me, by far the majority of the media is conservative in its slant. Do you honestly think Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan are liberal?

     Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 10:19pm

169. Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 10:19pm

     That wasn't my post by the way.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2009 @ 10:23pm

170. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2009 @ 10:23pm

     Oops.

     Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 10:52pm

171. But rather than being reinterpreted, the constitution provides a process for the citizens, not govt or judges, to make formal changes via the amendment process as we have done 26 times.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 6:22pm |

     Oh duh we don't need currently living judges using their unshielded and contaminated modern day interpreted education then to interpret our past laws or our constitution applied to today situations as it's all set in immovable stone-- a big NOT.

     BTW amendments to the constitution are initiated in the congress:

     To Propose Amendments

     Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or

     Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

     Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition. The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.

     Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only '27' amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

     Isn't our congress part of our government?

     antisociali is just plain anti-educated.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 11:05pm

172. Oops.

     Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 10:52pm

     I was quoting Antisocialist.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:20pm

173. The power to provide healthcare is not listed as one of the powers of the federal government

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 5:11pm

     Durwood, Why do you hate poor people so much?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:23pm

174. the Constitution is not a living document to be reinterpreted by changing centuries. That is why they provided the amendment process.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:58pm

     You truly are an idiot wrapped in a moron.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:25pm

175. I just got done watching Cheney rant about how his policies "have kept us safe for the last 7.5 years". Well, his, and his bosses policies over the last 8 years haven't kept us safe. 3000 plus Americans died on their watch, not Bill Clinton's nor Obama's.

     I'm not saying something may or may not happen in the future, but the Bush administration's track record sucks. You could say the FDR fell asleep at the switch, which many of the reanderthals posting here have said time and time again, but W and Cheney knew who AQ was and also knew who Bin Laden was and is. W is practically family as is his dad. The republicans are in bed with the Saudi royals to the nth degree ie, oil business and citibank not to mention other U.S. commodities.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:32pm

176. Hey surprise Jesse agrees with me:

     "Ventura also came out against the Bush administration, calling George Bush the "worst president in my lifetime" and saying he has "no respect for Dick Cheney."

     Claiming that he was water-boarded as part of Navy Seal training he received during the Vietnam War era, Ventura says:

     [Water-boarding] is torture... It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders."

     But I really think cHeney would even confess to letting 9/11 happen.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 11:33pm

177. And he'd do it on TV and under oath!

     Not that cHeney ever honored his oath to defend our US Constitution...

     But hey it's something.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 11:40pm

178. W is practically family as is his dad...er sorry, meant to say, W and his dad are practically family with the Saudi royals....Bin Laden's family.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:46pm

179. If torture worked-- we'd have gotten Osama Bin Laden years ago.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 11:50pm

180. Not that cHeney ever honored his oath to defend our US Constitution...

     But hey it's something.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 11:40pm

     There's a book on this particular subject. In waiting for the bus to go home, I'd read this book at the bookstore while waiting. I can't remember the title off hand, but it's got a picture of W in cowboy boots on the cover throwing money out of his suit and a few other neocon chairborne rangers like Cheney and John Wayne.

     The whole premise of the book is that the conservatives and noecons who push most of our wars are mostly a bunch of weak cowardly bought off crooks who pose as tough warrior like men who stave off the enemy to keep us safe....sound familiar? Take the likes of W, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz.....and of course John Wayne himself. A bunch of phony, lying cowards that talk tough but let other's do their tough work for them while they hide in their offices and collect their lofty paychecks.

     I don't think that you have to be Bob the bad ass to be able to have an opinion, but these assholes used their positions to accuse anyone who would oppose them of being weak, cowards and not up to the task of any threat. Talk about hypocritical, gutless, pieces of crap!

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:59pm

181. <i>Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:25pm </i>

     His statement is correct, but perhaps can be more precisely stated as follows: the Constitution was meant to evolve, but in specific ways. Courts were to adapt the Constitution to the present day by applying the enduring principles in the Constitution to particular circumstances. The principles themselves were to be changed only by the amendment process and nothing else. Our society often does have evolving standards of decency, but the only legitimate way to inscribe those evolving standards into the Constitution is to amend it.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/13/2009 @ 12:14am

182. we'd have gotten Osama Bin Laden years ago.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2009 @ 11:50pm

     but that would mess up the plan.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2009 @ 12:19am

183. Posted by Thrawn at 05/13/2009 @ 12:14am Try this on for size.

     IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

     We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....

     It goes on to say in short that care should be taken to not take a government down for expediencies sake pretty much, but the rest holds. In short, if a dictator were to take over, his government would know longer resemble the government upon which the original 13 colonies were talking about...ie, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Take this to mean that if the nation doesn't want to go to war, one man or even one party can't make it.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2009 @ 01:26am

184. Take this to mean that if the nation doesn't want to go to war, one man or even one party can't make it. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2009 @ 01:26am

     Unless there's a hell of a lot of deception going on... and an entire population is fooled into it. Like there's anything as 'legal' torture.

     Wonder if our generation will ever be viewed with any kind of sympathy by history for the gullibility and the amount of destruction that it raught?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/13/2009 @ 06:16am

185. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2009 @ 01:26am

     Is the country under the Constitution also bound by the Declaration of Independence? I personally don't think it is; the Declaration was not a document laying out laws and governance, it was basically an in-your-face press release. It was a statement justifying rebellion under the principles of the social contract.

     However, I do think that principles of the social contract are how a government should govern, and the people do have the right to overthrow their government when it becomes tyrannical and is not open to change by other means. I personally think we came very close to this under Bush; an executive that claimed powers far beyond those granted by the Constitution, a legislature that both enabled these power grabs and failed to challenge them, and a judiciary whose rulings on some of these abuses of power were ignored. Thankfully, the Bush administration gave up power when its term expired, however, there is quite a bit of evidence to show that it illegally gained power in the first place, through election fraud in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

     Posted by zmann at 05/13/2009 @ 07:09am

186. ie, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Take this to mean that if the nation doesn't want to go to war, one man or even one party can't make it.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2009 @ 01:26am

     Wolfman,

     Go back to the opinion polls of 2003. A supermajority of Americans (70%) supported removing Saddam.

     Many later regretted their support. That doesn't give you the right to change history and pretend that a single person or party went to war without the support of the rest of the country.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/13/2009 @ 07:48am

187. There's an issue here related to Obama's replacement for Souter and the living document theory of the Constitution, but I'm reluctant to make it the 200th post on a thread as it will have a very short shelf life, and I think it's an important discussion.

     What Anti, Thrawn, and I are advocating is the "Rule of Law", not the rule of men.

     yes, yea, torture is illegal. don't chang the subject.

     P. J. O'Rourke wrote a book called Eat the Rich. (I think this is the book. I loaned my cop to someone years ago and never got it back.)

     Anyway, PJ noticed four ingredients to a successful contry: Democratic institutions, Liberty, Respect for the Rule of law, and a fourth one I always forget.

     If I remember there were 12 chaperts. Each one was a country. Sweeden was Good Socialism; I think Russia was Bas Socialims; the US was Good Capitalism; Albania was Bad capitalism;

     Anyway, the purpose of science is to enhance predictability. The more we know about how the world works, the more we understand what is likely to happen in the future.

     Law is like that. If the Law says the punishment for murder is 25 to life, people get scarred when OJ gets off or President Bush orders torture for the guy who killed one of his family members.

     Dead laws, ie ones that mean the same thing today as they did yesterday, create stability and predictability.

     But when you have a law that is understood by the entire country that exists for 80 years (marriage laws) and the one day, 7 judges say, you know, I've decided that it means something completely different today.

     Well people feel powerless and uncertain.

     I'll probably post this again when Nichold changes the thread in an hour or two.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/13/2009 @ 08:00am

188. "Go back to the opinion polls of 2003. A supermajority of Americans (70%) supported removing Saddam. "

     Based on lies, obfuscations and propaganda. there is a reason they regret their poll results.

     Great basis for a war, Worlds Most Famous Actuary.

     "Cheney's statement came just days after Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of George W. Bush, had ruled in the habeas corpus review of one of the supposed "hardcore" prisoners -- a Chadian national called Mohammed El-Gharani, who was just 14 years old when he was seized in a random raid on a mosque in Karachi, Pakistan, and was later sold to US forces -- that the government had failed to establish a case against El-Gharani, and ordered his release "forthwith."

     Leon ruled that what purported to be evidence had been supplied by two of El-Gharani's fellow prisoners whose reliability had been called into doubt by government officials, and when it came to a key allegation, which, in Cheney's version of reality, ought to have bolstered his claims -- an allegation that El-Gharani had been part of an al-Qaeda cell in London in 1998 -- Leon was particularly dismissive. "Putting aside the obvious and unanswered questions as to how a Saudi minor from a very poor family could have even become a member of a London-based cell," he wrote, "the Government simply advances no corroborating evidence for these statements it believes to be reliable from a fellow detainee, the basis of whose knowledge is – at best – unknown."

     After noting that El-Gharani was just 11 years old at the time that he was supposed to have been plotting in London, Stafford Smith explained, "he must have been beamed over to the al-Qaeda meetings by the Starship Enterprise, since he never left Saudi Arabia by conventional means."

     ---

     Darin, afraid of 11 year olds.

     Posted by crabwalk at 05/13/2009 @ 08:03am

189. "Worst of the worst" The Bush admin told us.

     Really?

     http://tinyurl.com/d3zd9x

     Darin likes to cause pain to kids and hashish addicts. It makes SJCHERMAK feel safe to hold 14 year olds for years. It makes our cleric, Rev Larry Robinson (sp?) , feel good to know that inter clan war is a basis for holding people without charges.

     Because Dick Cheney told them these people were dangerous to the "freedoms" they hold dear. Freedoms like being able to check books from the library without the feds looking at the list, freedoms like not having the federal govt listening to their pillow talk, freedoms like not being kidnapped and sent to Syria.

     Wouldn't want Obama to take our fredoms via his Marxist plans!

     Morons. Hypocrites. Scared sheep.

     Posted by crabwalk at 05/13/2009 @ 08:10am

190. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/13/2009 @ 07:48am

     Yes, Darin, because they were told that Saddam had WMDs that he was about to give to Al Qaeda (whom he actually hated by the way) and was "re-constituting his nuclear program".

     Later it turned out that not only were there no WMDs, but Bush started JOKING about it at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2004.

     Cheney of course was wrong on just about everything on Iraq from the cost to WMDs to "last throes".

     Posted by Mask at 05/13/2009 @ 08:14am

191. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 12:38pm |

     Hey! Great stuff Darin. Quoting from another scared sheep!

     Way to go.

     How many of you Tough Americans would pull the finger nails out of a 11 year old if you thought he might, maybe know where his father was hiding?

     Do you have an age limit?

     would you waterboard a 7 year old if his father was Usama?

     ---

     "What Anti, Thrawn, and I are advocating is the "Rule of Law", not the rule of men. "

     Uh, actually Rule of Men is EXACTLY what you are advocating. You stood by and cheered as ChimpCo broke many laws. Fear does that.

     Posted by crabwalk at 05/13/2009 @ 08:15am

192. Crabbie-claus, this so-called investigation into who did what, why, or how, means very little to me when I have family members are currently unemployed.

     What happends in Washington won't get my siblings any closer to finding work, or in the case of two of them, getting out of forclosure.

     Posted by ACook at 05/12/2009 @ 11:43am

     ACOOK, what happened in Washington the last 8 years is WHY your family is losing their home and jobs. Include Clinton's support of NAFTA if you must find a dem to blame, but the core support for running your family out of their jobs came from your friends in the pro-bidness globilization, anti-worker crowd...called the GOP.

     Posted by crabwalk at 05/13/2009 @ 08:19am

193. actually, mr. crab it would be more correct to include EVERY administration going back to at least NIXON if you wish to assign blame.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2009 @ 08:58am

194. Posted by crabwalk at 05/13/2009 @ 08:10am

     Hey come on now, new con repubs are like hormonal junior high kids in a gang. They'll bend over easier than a yogi at an orgy for any leaders in their gang, but hey if they're from out of the neighborhood by even a block-- they ain't puttin'- out no how. And more than likely want to kill you for fun than pay attention to anything intelligent you had to say.

     There is a very good reason new con repubs don't believe in evolution...

     They're not meant to.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/13/2009 @ 12:45pm

195. <i>Posted by crabwalk at 05/13/2009 @ 08:15am </i>

     To whom does "you" refer in this statement? I have at no point cheered on any violation of the law by the Bush Administration. I have argued, for instance, that because legal norms clearly establish waterboarding as torture, that at least investigations (if not outright prosecutions) are completely justified (and, arguably, necessary). Based on our constitutional structure, the international community cannot COMPEL them, but I think it's crystal-clear that we should undertake them. Indeed, so long as there is any reasonable basis whatsoever to believe that torture took place, we should investigate it, and do so with regards to any who are credibly alleged to have done so.

     Some of Bush's other actions, admittedly, I did defend because the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Though I question the legitimacy of a full-fledged invasion without a declaration of war, and am deeply suspicious of the wiretapping programs that did indeed extend beyond the narrow class of people that Bush alleged, I do think that special circumstances do have to be taken into considerations. The Administration faced a lot of hard decisions; at what point do the lives of thousands, or even millions, outweigh the happiness of one individual prisoner? That is what I think Gerson's recent editorial in the Post was getting at when he discussed the torture memos.

     In short, as the Court has long recognized, emergencies justify actions beyond what peacetime would warrant. They do not, however, justify actions that are clearly and unambiguously classified by the international community (ourselves included, see Nuremburg and Tokyo) as war crimes or crimes against humanity. When that line is crossed, investigation and prosecution should follow.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/13/2009 @ 1:08pm

196. CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 22-26, 2009. N=973 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the threat of terrorism?"

     __Approve ___Disapprove___Unsure

     ____55________28________17

     "Do you think the policies of the Obama Administration have made the United States safer from terrorism, less safe from terrorism, or have the policies of the Obama Administration not affected the U.S.' safety from terrorism?"

     Safer__Less Safe__No Effect__Unsure

     _23_____19_______49_______9

     "Do you think it is sometimes justified to use waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation tactics to get information from a suspected terrorist, or are these tactics never justified?"

     SometimesJust__NeverJust_Depends_Unsure

     ____37_________46_______7_____10

     "In a procedure known as 'waterboarding,' interrogators produce the sensation of drowning in a restrained prisoner either by dunking him in water or pouring water over his face. Do you consider this procedure a form of torture, or not?"

     Torture___Not Torture___Unsure

     __71________26________3

     Just for a FYI comparison sake:

     Phase I: Aug-Sept 1998 (Before Impeachment)

     Average support for impeachment and removal (10 polls): 26%

     Average support for hearings (6 polls): 36%

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/13/2009 @ 1:24pm

197. "I have argued, for instance, that because legal norms clearly establish waterboarding as torture, that at least investigations (if not outright prosecutions) are completely justified (and, arguably, necessary)."----Posted by Thrawn at 05/13/2009 @ 1:08pm

     "Eschew verbage"--"Strunk & White"

     It's easy to lose your main defense of yourself in your tendency to over-talk the issue, THRAWN.

     You accept it was torture...it was illegal...and investigations, if not prosecutions are justified. Period.

     Posted by Mask at 05/13/2009 @ 1:43pm

198. I have a conundrum.

     I have been presented conflicting information from two sources I judge to be less than fully reliable.

     On the one hand, I've had a dozen people here tell me that we prosecuted Japanese soldiers in WWII for waterboarding (with the implication that it was waterboarding only and nothing more serious.)

     On the other hand, I've go Ann Coulter telling me this:

     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20090507/cm_ucac/watchingmsnbcistorture

     It might be: waterboarding PLUS amputating the prisoner's healthy arm, or waterboarding PLUS killing the prisoner…

     The Japanese routinely beheaded and bayoneted prisoners; forced prisoners to dig their own graves and then buried them alive; amputated prisoners' healthy arms and legs, one by one, for sport; force-fed prisoners dry rice and then filled their stomachs with water until their bowels exploded; and injected them with chemical weapons in order to observe, time and record their death throes before dumping them in mass graves…

     While only 4 percent of British and American troops captured by German or Italian forces died in captivity, 27 percent of British and American POWs captured by the Japanese died in captivity. Japanese war crimes were so atrocious that even rape was treated as only a secondary war crime in the Tokyo trial…

     The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."…

     The Japanese version of "waterboarding" was to fill the prisoner's stomach with water until his stomach was distended -- and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.

     Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner's nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/13/2009 @ 3:00pm

199. So how about it. Can you give me names and actual charges and case numbers, and, according to Ann, this one doesn't count:

     [From Ann Coulter]

     One of the earliest entries in the "waterboarding as war crimes" myth must be this October 2006 article in The Washington Post, citing a case raised by Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- and heaven knows Kennedy understands the horrors of a near-drowning:

     "Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk."

     Even if that description of what Asano did were true -- and it isn't -- the only relevant word in the entire paragraph is "civilian."

     Any mistreatment of a civilian is a war crime. So every other part of that paragraph is utterly irrelevant to the treatment of prisoners of war, much less non-uniformed enemy combatants at Guantanamo, who could have been shot on sight under the laws of war.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/13/2009 @ 3:02pm

200. Darin tBFT,

     Where were you when: http://tinyurl.com/qyw588

     or: http://tinyurl.com/crr576

     Lots of other stuff other than waterboarding happened at Abu Ghraib.

     And yes that is torture too.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/13/2009 @ 3:44pm

201. April 26, 2005

     Deaths in Custody: 108 People Have Died in U.S. Custody, U.S. Government Acknowledges

     The U.S. government has acknowledged 28 confirmed or suspected homicides of detainees in U.S. custody. Only one of these homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib.[1]

     At least 45 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was informed of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004.[2]

     63 of the 108 detainee deaths occurred at locations other than Abu Ghraib.[3]

     http://tinyurl.com/bmpn3

     http://tinyurl.com/9zqjx

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/13/2009 @ 4:00pm

202. It's kind of funny how the rethug argument and or lack of logic on this subject goes.

     First, it really wasn't torture, but then it was found that yes, it was indeed torture.

     Then, the justification became, well, ok even if it was torture, it was for the common good of all Amercians because they needed the information and the only way to break these hard cases was to torture them.

     Then, people directly invovled in the process said that the torture didn't reveal anything they didn't already get from the prisoners before the waterboarding began. Other experts have stepped forward to say that torture doesn't work per say, and that only hacks think it does work.

     So, everything goes full circle and Durwood is saying that, well, the Japanese tortured worse than we did, so we're not so bad afterall, and besides, they deserved to be tortured anyway! LOL

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 10:42am

203. Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this one is very disappointing. where do you get off judging your patients. I don't recall that part of the hippocratic oath.

     here's something you might try. pity

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/14/2009 @ 3:38pm

204. by all reports, torture does kill. many prisoners died in american custody. they were tortured to death.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/14/2009 @ 3:40pm

205. reanderthals

     reverse evolution, leading again to Neanderthals. like liverty and darin and acook.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/14/2009 @ 3:47pm

206. torture doesn't work per say,

     it doesn't work per se either.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/14/2009 @ 3:51pm

207. What I find so amazing is that 60 some odd percent of the church going folks think torture is fine.

     Now, is there something called the golden rule, "do unto others.....

     Where are all of these Christians now?

     We can't control what the enemy might do to our soldiers if taken prisoner, but, we can control our own actions. If we detest seeing our soldiers tortured, then we should also detest seeing any soldier tortured.

     Once the soldier is removed from the battlefield and is in your custody, he is no longer a threat, so there is no reason to torture him. To the contrary, if you treat him half way decent, he might change his mind about hating you in the first place.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 3:55pm

208. per se either. Thanks for pointing that out Emile.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 3:57pm

209. GOPigs whining about Dems being obsessed with torture investigations? How hypocritical when a few years ago they were obsessing about a sperm stain on a blue dress.

     Posted by Bachrock9 at 05/14/2009 @ 6:28pm

210. How hypocritical when a few years ago they were obsessing about a sperm stain on a blue dress.

     Posted by Bachrock9 at 05/14/2009 @ 6:28pm

     What it boils down to is they were jealous that that guy Clinton they hated so much was getting bj's in the oval office.....and they weren't!

     Lying about screwing around on your wife is a bigger sin to these idiots than lying about reasons to go to war. Let's take a look at the differences of outcomes. Clinton's wife now knows of his affairs, and he had to say he was sorry. Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq being a threat to the U.S. and now we are still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, trilllions of dollars in debt, refinancing a corrupt banking system and wallstreet while W and Cheney were more concerned with Saddam. Yes, that stain on Monica's dress was an ordeal of epic proportions.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 05:22am

211. the thing you have to realize about Monica is that she was a communist mole, sent to bring down our beloved president.

     they tried it before with Reagan, but he fell asleep during the act.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 10:30am

212. So many are still upset by the Clinton impeachment. I'm not. It was misguided, stupid, and over the top. Let's learn from it how pointless it is to waste time and huge sums seeking to embarass the opposition or extract a little vengeance.

     Just about everything I read seeking the impeachment or prosecution of members of the former adminstration contain the argument that starts something like this, "If Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about ........" Let's get past settling petty old scores and move on, for once.

     Posted by jsens at 05/15/2009 @ 12:02pm

213. Let's get past settling petty old scores and move on, for once.

     Posted by jsens at 05/15/2009 @ 12:02pm

     So, you think we should just go on torturing prisoners? You don't think the executive branch should be held in check by Congress?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 12:13pm

214. say, I kill my landlord, he had it comin'. I go before the judge and say:

     Let's get past settling petty old scores and move on, for once.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 12:23pm

215. Let's get past settling petty old scores and move on, for once.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 12:23pm

     That does seem to be the case that we're hearing from some sorts including Obama.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 1:13pm

216. so kids, what do you think happened to Maasch? posting under a different flag, or moved on to that island somewhere?

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/16/2009 @ 10:13am