A disgusting display of gutter journalism.

2/21/2008 9:07:49 PM

Quote :

"I disagree about its authorization _under ANY circumstances"

ehhh, i mean, i could dream up circumstances where i'd waterboard someone (or far worse) if I really had to, but we're talking about highly unusual scenarios. it is basically something that we shouldn't be engaging in--i just hesitate to say "NEVER, EVER, for ANY reason."

if one of those crazy circumstances played out, though, and we decided we needed to utilize torture because we were out of options, i'd want authorization and responsibility right to the top.

2/22/2008 12:13:47 AM

The New York Times' agenda-driven piece is anecdotal speculation--nothing more. Way to rally the conservative troops and others in support of McCain, you far-left rag.

What do you expect? The Times is run by Pinchy McSaltburger:



Image source: JoeSchmoe

2/22/2008 1:23:24 AM

Quote :

"ehhh, i mean, i could dream up circumstances where i'd waterboard someone (or far worse) if I really had to, but we're talking about highly unusual scenarios. it is basically something that we shouldn't be engaging in--i just hesitate to say "NEVER, EVER, for ANY reason." if one of those crazy circumstances played out, though, and we decided we needed to utilize torture because we were out of options, i'd want authorization and responsibility right to the top."

This post pretty much sums up what all the problems are quite well.

You have to ask yourself if you would be OK with a CIA agent keeping someone's hands tightly tied behind their back for hours? I mean, it's causing pain and discomfort. Is that OK?

What about if you allow the CIA agent to smack the interrogee with the back of his hand not so much to inflict physical pain, but as a sign of disprespect? Is that mental torture? Is that OK?

There are so many shades of gray here.

McCain and others like Lindsey Graham have been working to define that with a little more clarity, but the problem they are facing is where do you draw the line. Certainly some amount of force must be used to detain someone that causes them varying degrees of pain and/or suffering, but if you make the lines too tight, well maybe you end up with 50,000 law suits against the government for something completely irrational like PTSD from being in isolation and if they are too loose then you have CIA agents shoving nails under peoples fingernails. It's a tough balance.

[Edited on February 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM. Reason : sad]

2/22/2008 8:27:23 AM

Sputter

"if the government says its not torture it must be true; pot must be evil also since the gov't says it baddd . "

in all honesty it pisses me off more that the gov't tries to bend the truth and use its power to dictate water boarding is not torture; more than it bothers that they actually might have to use it. Whats next W will get the judicial branch to declare that NSA agents indiscriminately tapping into american phone calls is not invasion of privacy but opportunistic proactive intelligent gathering therefore a warrant nor judicial review is needed. oh wait .....

[Edited on February 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM. Reason : l]

2/22/2008 8:41:52 AM

You are right that the DOJ may not be as independent from the administration as it is supposed to be in theory, but what is really going to piss you off is that by first consulting the DOJ before proceeding with any of these questionable interrogation and/or surveillance tactics they create for themselves a "reliance on the advice of counsel in good faith" defense which was recently shored up by a Congress to protect the CIA (see Detainee Treatment Act of 2005).

Essentially, even if any of these practices are found to be illegal and that anyone in the administration was breaking international law, they will not be convicted.

2/22/2008 8:51:42 AM

Kinda like how Hitler's final solution was not genocide it was ethnic cleansing

2/22/2008 8:55:21 AM

I don't really understand your logic or connection there. It's not as if this administration is doing something that every administration hasn't done since the Vietnam War. Bush just asked for a DOJ opinion on whether or not certain interrogation tactics were legal. The actual memo was a disgustingly liberal interpretation of the law, however, and that is why someone leaked it to the press.

The CIA was "torturing" the Vietnamese, Nicarguans, and men of middle eastern descent well before you or I were ever born.

I guess if your blind hate of GWB keeps you from rationally considering the issue, then our discourse should probably end.

2/22/2008 9:01:32 AM

That's fine. As i said before i have more problem with the administration trying to define its interrogation as "not torture" by manipulation of the judicial branch than rather or not they seem fit certain circumstances to use torture.

I know they used torture in vietnam but that does not make right.

2/22/2008 9:49:27 AM

You are pretty a reasonable guy and I think that it's good that most ordinary Americans detest what this administration has been doing concerning the unconstitutional and morally reprehensible detaining and torturing of foreign citizens.

However, laying the blame solely at the feet of GWB is a partisan attempt at making Republicans look bad, and I hate that is what our country has come to. No one wants to really look at issues anymore, they only want to believe what is convenient to whatever group they are identifying themselves with.

In short, we seem to agree wholeheartedly.

2/22/2008 10:05:47 AM

I support McCain so its not partisan at least for me. Truthfully when it comes down to it I think Bush's problem is the people under him. There is to much info for any one man to know how to handle everything that occurs to run a country. Thus it is up to the people he appoints to the high departmental posts and his cabinet to make a lot of decisions and present the president with the appropriate information when a decision has been made. I think Bush while obviously "smart" being a Yale graduate; is very impressionable which has allowed some of his idiot underlings to screw shit up over the last 8 years though. Either way he is president and gets the finger pointed at him for good or bad.

Nixon was not involved with Watergate. However, since it involved other high officials under him he ended up going down with the ship. Thus he is forever a blip of disgrace in american history books regardless of any good he did while in office.

2/22/2008 12:41:47 PM

Quote :

"ehhh, i mean, i could dream up circumstances where i'd waterboard someone (or far worse) if I really had to, but we're talking about highly unusual scenarios. it is basically something that we shouldn't be engaging in--i just hesitate to say "NEVER, EVER, for ANY reason." if one of those crazy circumstances played out, though, and we decided we needed to utilize torture because we were out of options, i'd want authorization and responsibility right to the top. "

And on top of that it should be our official policy, especially when other countries ask, that we don't torture.

2/22/2008 12:45:43 PM

On the topic of the article, did any of you actually read it?

I thought it was a really good portrayal of an honest man and good commentary on how tricky politics can be for such an honest person. The article actually made me think about Ms. Clinton and how a piece like that could never be written about her because she is a dishonest, corrupted individual. And I believe that Clinton's "mistakes" are covered up and paved over with money while McCain actually talks about his trials as a politician.

I mean, one of the things I don't like about Obama is that he is young and inexperienced. He hasn't had as many years to make mistakes as McCain and Clinton. He hasn't had to run the corruption gauntlet for nearly as long. And it almost seems unfair; I almost want my politicians to have to suffer and lose themselves in order to represent me.

McCain has lost himself momentarily, but he finds his way back through honesty and integrity. And Clinton's gone too far--I don't think she'll ever return to a place that we call decent and honorable.

2/22/2008 1:24:43 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505

2/22/2008 3:12:22 PM

AHA, he sucks at lying.

2/22/2008 3:55:46 PM

this blog has dug up too much to post here. i can't say i know nearly enough about the topic to make complete sense of it. but here it is:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com

2/23/2008 5:20:04 PM

As much as it pains me to agree with BridgetSPK, her assertion holds merit that these claims are very damaging, but probably nothing compared to others who have been in DC as long as Senator McCain.

It's interesting, however, to see all the news articles that are being published to damn Senator McCain so shortly after wrapping up the Republican nomination.



[Edited on February 23, 2008 at 5:50 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/23/2008 5:49:39 PM

Typical, just like these piece of shit liberals who were slobbing McCain's knob 2 months ago but have since had some kind of epiphany as to why they can't vote for him once he secured the Republican nomination.

Fuck these pos democrats and their opinions of Republican candidates.

2/23/2008 10:43:15 PM

^^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/23/MNSGV758N.DTL this seems to say that it has kinda helped him

At the least, as ^ knucklehead demonstrates, it's kind of hardening the anti-mcCain right to be pro-mccain.

2/24/2008 12:40:41 AM

Quote :

"Sputter : Wow You have no idea what you are talking about. ... In 1987, a Bush was president ... "

"wow", indeed

2/24/2008 5:46:22 AM

god dammit i forgot to type in vice.

big fucking deal JoeSchmoe.

Shouldn't you should be somewhere beating off to pics of Obama?

2/24/2008 8:35:08 AM

no, looking at the context, im quite sure you didnt "forget to type in vice", because then your post wouldnt have made sense.

as to your question, im already spent. i blew the left and the right on a full page color foldout. thats when i come here to stir up trolls.

2/24/2008 12:58:08 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: piece of shit liberals ... slobbing McCain's knob ... Fuck these pos democrats "

wow.

so that's what converting to Catholicism does to you? you tell the priest every week about your TDub behavior, right?




[Edited on February 24, 2008 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2008 1:04:29 PM

Does living in Seattle while trying to avoid your gay tendencies make you the asshole that you are today?

Maybe I should take lessons from you and just be bitter all the time instead of when hypocrites and liars get under my skin.

[Edited on February 24, 2008 at 6:46 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2008 6:39:43 PM

God called.

He wanted me to remind you that you're the hypocrite.

Also, He thinks your references to sodomy could be a bit more colorful. But that's just a suggestion, He says.

2/24/2008 7:47:08 PM

i dont get why the hardcore republicans hate mccain so much

2/24/2008 7:54:06 PM

^^ Did He tell you this during one of your food induced comas?

2/24/2008 8:55:51 PM

you're really a foul hateful bastard. does jesus know you talk to people like that

oh and you should take those rosary beads out of your asshole for a while. give 'em a rest why dontcha?

2/24/2008 10:20:48 PM

^^ ha, you're not exactly in the position to pick on someone about their weight.

2/24/2008 10:55:39 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html

Looks like there was some dissent.

2/25/2008 9:55:03 AM

that was evident the moment it came out (via the new republic article)

2/25/2008 10:01:39 AM

^ But it's a bit different when even folks at NYT are publishing articles in NYT about how shakey its foundations were? Don't you think?

2/25/2008 10:35:47 AM

Quote :

"Looks like there was some dissent."

The dissent wasn't over the major points of the article, but over the hint of him having an affair without any solid evidence. The Times sticks by its story in regards to him having shady deals despite his 'efforts to reform.'

2/25/2008 10:59:35 AM

^ Actually, the time sticks by its story that McCain is not concerned enough with the APPEARANCES of shady-dealing. If you re-read Hoyt's piece you will note that he makes that distinction EXPLICITLY. [You will note there is no smoking gun: McCain did X for Y in order to get Z amount of money as proven with this evidence...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html

Of course, as this campaign makes totally clear, appearances are all that really matter.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ``]

2/25/2008 11:24:45 AM

Appearances are extremely important in politics, especially when addressing ETHICS.

I'm not saying it's the only important thing, but to completely disregard them is stupid.

2/25/2008 1:15:16 PM

Quote :

"You will note there is no smoking gun: McCain [has no evidence against him] "

that's exactly what they said when he was being investigated as a primary in the Keating Five.

2/25/2008 3:14:36 PM

^ Which is why Keating was a non-issue in the 2000 election and will be a non-issue in 2008.
This reminds of that line from Syriana. "You're presumed innocent until investigated".
Just remember that Obama has the appearance of shaddy dealing as well after only two-seconds on the national stage.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ``]

2/25/2008 3:58:38 PM

pls to tell me about shaddy dealing, thanking you kindly







[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

2/25/2008 8:24:10 PM

Quote :

"no, looking at the context, im quite sure you didnt "forget to type in vice", because then your post wouldnt have made sense. as to your question, im already spent. i blew the left and the right on a full page color foldout. thats when i come here to stir up trolls. "

Well, whatever you need to believe is fine with me. Regardless, everything else in that post makes perfect sense. I guess when you have no substantive argument all you can do is call out spelling errors (see shaddy sracasm directly above) or a small timing mistake on my part. Either way the UN brought CAT into force in 87 and in 88 Bush signed the statute, approved through the advice and consent of Senate and passed through HOR, giving it force.




[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM. Reason : All Hail Obama our great and fearless leader.]

2/27/2008 9:04:50 AM

actually, i am very interested to hear what, exactly, this "shady dealing" is that socks alludes to.

i'm not the one making unsubstantiated assertions.

2/27/2008 11:00:17 AM

I like Obama's friends a lot better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

His minister is awesome. I hate whites and jews too.

Quote :

"The Obama and Clinton campaigns are involved in a tasteless tussle over the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. What is clear from rereading King's celebrated "I Have a Dream" speech of Aug. 28, 1963, is how inclusive that dream was -- "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!' " This, though, is not Farrakhan's dream. He has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural? "

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:22 AM. Reason : Racism against whites is not racism]

2/27/2008 11:19:12 AM

well for one thing... look who wrote that Op-Ed piece?

Richard Cohen.

now, of course he's going to try and paint Obama in a bad light because Obama has dared to criticise Likud and wants the US to reconsider some of the insane amount of no-strings-attached monetary and military support we keep shoveling over to Israel.

Clinton OTOH, is a fierce proponent of the Israelis unilateral action against their neighbors, and has no issue with taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the various entities composing the Israeli Lobby.

who do you think cohen is going to back?

Of course, Farrakhan has his problems.

but how is it relevant that Wright, the preacher of one of Chicago's largest historically black Christian church, happens to publish a non church-affiliated magazine that addresses a plethora of issues, and one time singled out praise for the work that Farrakhan has done to help inner-city blacks. Obama has already publicly stated that he disagrees with Wright's views on Farrakhan.

Farrakhan is just a black Pat Robertson. somehow they have influence with a small group of their faithful followers, but the rest of the country just rolls their eyes at them both.

2/27/2008 11:41:48 AM

So if McCain went to a church and publicly prayed with his minister before his announcement to run for President and this minister handed out awards to David Duke and praised the Khu Klux Klan, you would be OK with that?

All McCain would have to do is say he disagrees, but he still remained a member of that church and was regularly in contact for spiritual advising.

Obama refused to denounce Farrkhan's support on live television in a bid to make sure he continues to have the support of that racist, homophobic, anti-semitic group.

Maybe your love is blinding you a little.



[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:56 AM. Reason : a vote for Obama is a vote for racism]

2/27/2008 11:52:35 AM

you keep forgetting: obama was raised by a white single mother and his white grandparents. he's just as white as he is black.

its clinton's supporters and her campaign who keeps trying to turn this into a race war.

now go back in your hole.

2/27/2008 11:59:26 AM

You forget that whenever Obama identifies himself he identifies himself as African American.

Good job completely disregarding what would have been a huge issue if it was anyone but Obama.

And since all you ever do is respond with smart ass remarks all over the Soap Box, it really is you that is the troll. I know that's a fun game you like to play, pretending that you are some thoughtful poster when in reality all you do is bitch.


And your argument sounds a whole like the argument that so many white racists use, "I'm not racist, I have a black brother-in-law or friend, but (insert insanely racist statement here)."

Why does he continue to enjoy the support of these racists if he isn't one himself?

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 12:12 PM. Reason : dfs]

2/27/2008 12:10:27 PM

Quote :

"Obama refused to denounce Farrkhan's support on live television in a bid to make sure he continues to have the support of that racist, homophobic, anti-semitic group."

He did the exact opposite of that.

Quote :

"RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle? CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching. OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce. "

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2008 12:49:32 PM

Quote :

"You forget that whenever Obama identifies himself he identifies himself as African American."

bullshit. you're the one talking out of your ass now.

he always has and continues to -- since long before he ever made his run for US Senate or even Illinois legislature -- identify himself as a person of mixed ethnicity.

i dont know where you get these talking points that you keep parroting, but you sound ridiculously ill-informed.

2/27/2008 1:10:27 PM

Quote :

"Sputter: So if McCain went to a church and publicly prayed with his minister before his announcement to run for President and this minister handed out awards to David Duke and praised the Khu Klux Klan"

Talk about trolling That's a gross logical fallacy, a blatant red herring ... now is that an intentional distraction on your part, or do you just not know any better? No one in his church, not his minister or anyone, has praised the Nation of Islam, or any of the racist/anti-semitic speech of Louis Farrakhan.

Look, I don't have to defend Obama. He defends himself quite well in his own words. Read for yourself.

Quote :

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree. -- Barack Obama, press release, 1/15/2008 (Washington Post) "

Quote :

"Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago and as a consequence he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them. I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is that recently, I guess last year, an award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to Jewish community and I said so. -- Barack Obama, speech to Cleveland Jewish Community Center, 2/27/2008 (Time) "

but of course, Clinton campaign toolbags are still trying to twist the facts, ignore the evidence and play the race card despite the reality. That's fine though... it's already blown up in her face. Her only hope now for this nomination is to pull some shenanigans at the DNC.






[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2008 2:29:30 PM

Quote :

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form"

lol sure thing barack....sure thing...thats why you go to a racist church http://www.tucc.org/

hey a politician lied? NO NEVER THAT

and i can assure you i'm nothing remotely close to a "Clinton campaign toolbag"

2/27/2008 3:52:48 PM

oh really? how is Trinity United Church of Christ, a mainline protestant denomination and member of the World Association of Churches (among others) a racist church?

what evidence do you have?

what's that? i cant hear you, louder please.

Oh, you say you have NO EVIDENCE? None? None at all?

well, imagine that.

lookie here and see what i got:

Quote :

"W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ. --Mission Statement, Trinity United Church of Christ "

2/27/2008 4:20:02 PM