How about the many that our valorous died to protect?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

What are you talking about? We didnt invade Iraq to protect ANY Iraqis. Did the Iraqis ever ASK us to invade them? Your post was plainly stupid

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/program.html

A COURT ORDER directed these memos be released!!

Anyone who has a problem with the release of these memos should be directing their outrage at the Court, NOT President Obama, who was compelled to comply with the repeated Orders of the Court!

Thanks.

I never really concluded that you would be ‘cool’ with torture if it were legal, only pointed out this result from the construction of your argument. In other words, find a better response to the orignal post.

For your problem with wingnuts, this is aptly said to be your problem. It s strange to me though that you intend this as an insult to me merely because I took issue with a syntax flaw in your rational.

Now, however, comes the news that Pelosi knew as early as 2002 that the U.S. was using waterboarding and other torture techniques and, far from objecting, appears to have cheered the tactics on.

The Washington Post reports that Pelosi, who was then a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, was were informed by CIA officials at a secret briefing in September 2002, that waterboarding and other forms of torture were being used on suspected al-Queda operatives. That’s bad. Even worse is the revelation that Pelosi was apparently supportive of the initiative.

According to the news reports, Pelosi has no complaint about waterboarding during a closed-door session she attended with Florida Congressman Porter Goss, a Republican who would go on to head the Central Intelligence Agency, Kansas Republican Senator Pat Roberts and Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham.

“The reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement,” recalls Goss.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/258258

Nicely done and every word rings true.

If he feels so strongly and is out in the media blabbering torture secrets. Then he should have absolutely no opposition to an independent prosecutor investigating the ordeal. After all, if it is legal and harmless as Michael Hayden decries, he and his secret goons would be cleared and not admonishied.

Maybe he was sure Bush would give out medals for inhumane and innamne actions. But did hayden truly believe Americans in general would hand out medals for their alledged crimes?

While there is some legitimate and relevant debate as to when a fetus is a human being; a zygote, an embryo, or a blastocyst is no more or less human than a wart.

I think there is a point where an abortion should be contraindicated on all levels. However I really can’t see the issue with early term abortion and birth control. Oh yes! You can’t logically treat them as separate.

Wanna stop the overwhelming majority of abortions? Provide free, anonymous, birth control and frank education from parents and qualified sexual health professionals. And leave religion the (bleep!) out of it!!!

BACK ON TOPIC, and sorry again about the length.

Despite a lack of specific training I have a hobby of reading Treaties, Constitutions, foundational documents in general. And there’s not a one of them, outside of sectarian religious vengeance BS, that wouldn’t deem our actions criminal.

I have no doubt that good people, inadequately trained and supervised, went too far. That happens and some of the perpetrators have been fairly punished. By dishonoring their commitments to our country they no longer represent us. But the fact that the highest representatives of our country ordered people to kill and torture innocent human beings is sickening.

These miserable worms who defend the crimes committed in our names will never realize the real cost and they fear the wrong things. 9/11 was a horrific act. It wasn’t the real cost. Untold thousands dead in our lust for revenge. That wasn’t the real cost. And the trivial matter of a gutted economy is not the real cost.

The real cost is that the recognized government of our nation ordered the killing and torture of people who had never harmed us and never had the capability or intent to do so. Everybody we piss off until the end of civilization will carry that knowledge and, horrible as the truth is, it will grow more horrible still.

And if you are really a citizen of our free society, you share a piece of the blame and owe a blood debt. Historically, a blood debt can only be paid in two ways. The first is with your own blood. That settles things. The second is to beg, and offer, forgiveness. Injustice can be forgiven but not without atonement. And without genuine remorse it doesn’t matter what happens to Bushco.

No matter what judgment befalls George Bush in his lifetime, he will be known forever as “The Torture President”, “The Invader”. And the countless innocents who’s lives he destroyed will curse him as the Devil! And untold thousands of them will see every American as one of his Demons. If we want a moment’s peace we, as a nation, must start apologizing, loudly and often and from the heart, for Busco’s crimes.

And that’s the real cost. These ignorant Reichwing savages blabber about freedom and security? A citizen who can’t safely visit a neighbor, or another nation isn’t free and a nation with millions of enemies, with nothing to lose, will never be secure. And the worst damage will be done if no desperate foreign criminal ever kills an innocent in our country because the shame will follow all rational citizens to the grave and beyond.

Thanks for reading.

I did not state, nor do I feel, that “torture would be cool as long as it were legal”. Didn’t articulate it, don’t agree with it and would never use the word “cool” to describe torture.

I do have a problem with people describing a two day old zygote a “baby at any time during a pregnancy” which is the phrase in the original post @119.

I hope you see the difference, and beyond that will admit the difference, which alot of you right-wingnuts (all better now?) have trouble with, i.e. acknowledging the obvious to avoid losing the argument.

And again, please don’t try to finesse what I say, twisting the meaning of my words, or worse, making them up as you did in your last post.

Thanks.

Actions speak more loudly than words, i.e. I’d rather be called evil than be tortured. Put another way, you seemed to be more bothered by the moniker ‘evil’ than by torture. I hope not.

I certainly am not bothered more with the monicker of ‘evil’. I just feel that it is worth framing context and cautioning against irrationality in response to irrationality.

It is reasonable to me to express outrage at the sanctioning of waterboarding, et al. But to call him, or others, evil? Consider this, many of these people care dearly about the safety of the US and feel such an urgency of action that they rationalize this behavior. How many of you wouldn’t torture another person if they snatched your kid and left him/her somewhere for dead? I wouldn’t say that you were evil for doing so. Be PO’d, call it un-american, or whatever, but be hesitant to declare him as evil.

———–

Actions speak more loudly than words, i.e. I’d rather be called evil than be tortured. Put another way, you seemed to be more bothered by the moniker ‘evil’ than by torture. I hope not.

Wingnut? Is that a leftwingnut or a rightwingnut? Here goes again, you argument follows that torture would be cool as long as it was legal. I disagree, bottom line. BTW, I didn’t get the PROD reference until I rechecked the original copy/paste.

You call that torture? I only drink natural mineral water and rain water because the enemies have been brain-washing US citizens with fluride for decades. THAT’S torture!

———–

Yes, I call it torture. Until Shrub was appointed, the US government called it torture. The people who survived the Inquisition called it torture. Our European allies (hit a nerve?)consider it torture, the US government that executed Japanese soldiers after WW2 considered it torture, the Hague considers it torture.

North Korea, China, Saddam Hussein…not so much.

Nice to know where you stand, though.

And as far as flouride (hint: spelling correctly the thing about which you are ranting adds to credibility. Just sayin’), how’s that John Birch Society membership and your rotting teeth working out for you?

woodguy Says:

Proud Says:
——————————————————————————–

I am well prepared for all the stupid comments that will follow this post, but just for a second use your intellect and explain to me why the left is more than happy to kill a baby at any time during a pregancy, but is all up in arms about pouring some water on the face of a terrorist, who by the way would not hesitate a second to kill you if he had the chance. How do you develop such twisted logic? Please explain.

———-

How’s this for logic, sparky? Abortion is legal, torture is not.

No twists there.

That wasn’t the question now was it? Unless of course your only contention is the formal legality? Thus being that torture would be perfectly legit if it were not illegal.

————

You wingnuts think torture is “legit” even when it is illegal and abortion (adding in the ‘at any time’ straw man, of course) even if it’s legal.

Is legality a legitimate “contention”? I think so.

I don’t know if this will show up or not. I’ve put three comments in during the last ten minutes and they disappeared, but here goes.

You subbing for Prod tonight? Or was he unable to respond for
several hours? Just wondering.

exactly…while the leftest panty waist worry about the proper spelling of the word Your…You’re…YUR…they do not give a darn about protecting children.

It seems imprudent to suggest that any persons don’t care about children. Through all disagreements we should recognize that we are on the same team afterall, and generally have the same ideals for end-state.

Proud Says:

It’s not a baby during the pregnancy. It’s a fetus. It’s not a person. So what you’re saying in the first part there is impossible.

But the fetus must be very important as its murder carries a hefty penalty.

Proud Says:
——————————————————————————–

No twists there.

That wasn’t the question now was it? Unless of course your only contention is the formal legality? Thus being that torture would be perfectly legit if it were not illegal.