idrankwhat

First off, you're assuming that you know you have the right person. Secondly, you're assuming that the torture would elicit information that would result in saving those lives. Thirdly, you're not taking into consideration the lives that would be lost fighting an enemy that is attacking us because we committed torture. So, if torture might save your kid's life but will most likely(as most experts agree) cause two more, would you do it? And now, using the same scenario, would you expect your government to do it?

But the storm is the point. It doesn't matter who the nominee is, there will be a lot of political posturing aimed at motivating the base and rebuilding the Republican party. They've actually stated that point specifically. Some quotes gathered by Media Matters: “Remember,” adds Princeton law professor Robert George, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, “that the base does not expect to win this. That’s the little secret. [Republicans] don’t have the filibuster, the Democrats have the votes. For [the conservative base], this is about the future of the Republican Party, not who is going to sit on the Supreme Court. . . . . That is why conservatives are going to be interested in it, and what they are going to hold people accountable for.” “We are very excited about waging an ideological debate,” says Richard Viguerie, the well-heeled conservative fundraiser and direct-mail guru. “We never lose battles. Even if we lose the vote we win, we build the movement.” “Whether they fall into category of something I think is not such a bad nominee, or a bad nominee, we and other Republicans are going to question the nominee very vigorously,” Grassley said. "It's an immense opportunity to build the conservative movement and identify the troops out there," said Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative fund-raiser. "It's a massive teaching moment for America. We've got the packages written. We're waiting right now to put a name in." "a great opportunity to really prepare the great debate with a view toward Senate elections in 2010 and the presidency." "This is an issue that if Americans focus on it, it will bring out their conservative side," he said. "And that could help the political fortunes of conservatives in the future." Read the article here if you like.

[ennui]

Yea, what's up with those dems? Don't they know that the job of the legislature is to rubber stamp everything the President does? See? More "change"! And you were so skeptical But thanks for posting this. I've been looking for a thread in which to drop this link. Best commentary to date IMO

Thanks, that's good to know. I didn't want to beat my head looking for a "PEBKAC" or "PEBCAC" (in this case) problem when it resided in the software. I guess that means it's a setting issue but I can't for the life of me figure out why it it would only work half way. I'll give it another go this evening. If I have any more headbanging I'll try to be more specific when I throw out the call for help. Thanks again.

Awww....c'mon. The hotel is easily five stars! (on a 25 star scale)! See you Friday!!!

Do you know if 8 pro has this bug? I was having problems capturing HD last night. It about drove me crazy. I could manipulate the camera through the capture window but there was no video preview and nothing was actually captured. I only had success when I downconverted to SD. Also, I'm going under the assumption that I can download in HD but that I can render the final project in SD for DVD if I choose to. Any advice from anyone would be appreciated before I start banging my head on this again tonight.

I'm not about to call you a Bush fan, but it's impressive to see how quickly people seem to want to transfer responsibility for 8 years worth of bad decisions to Obama. Bush hit the iceberg and handed the wheel to Obama. I'm willing to give Obama more than four months to work this out.

What Cheney wants released are a couple of documents that are part of an ongoing lawsuit. He says they show that torture was effective. Regardless of the reality that it's been proven that torture is counterproductive, it's illegal. Even if it did work, it's illegal.

If open accountability for Cheney and Bush is embarrassing them, it's not anyone's fault but their own.

That's because we never should have left the location of the problem in favor of an optional war elsewhere. Now we're cleaning up after 43's bad decision. I don't think it's fair to give Obama a hard time because he hasn't pulled us out of a near depression in the first twelfth of his first term. But yea, the deficit is a serious problem. How big do you think it would have been this year if McCain had won?

Nope. Not at all. But I am getting tired of the jaywalker getting the ticket while the bank robber gets away.

Hardly. Yea, we complained about Bush LIKE CRAZY! We did it every day. But you're forgetting one very important thing. We were right about damn near everything we criticized him for! Sorry that you guys didn't listen and get rid of him the first time you had a chance but even when he and the Republicans were betraying you, no betraying us, you folks just kept on embracing him. I'm not an "I told ya so" kinda guy but at times like these, when almost everyone is trying to get as far away from the Bushies as possible, it's really tempting. But nope, I'm not gonna do it

Not at all John. But many of us can realize that the big picture, the well being of the country, is more important than petty bullshit political marksmanship. Bush was bad for this country in a number of ways. It was an expensive, deadly, train wreck of an administration. What they did was wrong and they should have been held accountable years ago. Nothing would make me happier than to see him and his enablers called into full account on a world stage, with pictures and videos preceding the keel hauling exercise. Nothing would make me happier except one thing; our country recovering from one of the biggest mistakes of our history and doing so quickly, quietly and inexpensively. And if it takes being called a "flip flopper" or having to keep your mouth shut when you want to scream, then so be it. It sucks, but it's the right thing to do. I'm unhappy that Cheney won't have these pics thrown in his face, but I understand. Obama made the right decision at this time.

I'm just dumfounded that witnesses, or even potential witnesses, are getting more scrutiny than the criminals. I don't get it. Now, off to the store to find something for the grill. I hear that red herring is in season.

I agree, that's always been true, but especially when you look at a work vs. compensation comparison over the last couple of decades. Boy, do I wish THAT were true! See my first post. It's a two way street. Quote You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." [/reply Sure you can, try splitting the value of a stock. Of course you could always derive wealth, as we did over the last decade, but then you end up having to be bailed out from the public trough.

And that differs from FOX "news" how? It's an editorial from someone with a propensity for that sort of flare. It's not meant to be a news piece. But calling Dowd "egotistical" when talking about Cheney? She's simply fighting fire with fire. Cheney means well, he honestly thinks he lived in an all powerful netherworld that was neither executive or legislative. He also thinks that his heavy handed tactics are justified and legal. But he and imperialist ego are wrong. Our Constitution doesn't work that way and we are supposed to set an example by adhering to our laws and our treaties. And this has nothing to do with the Obama administration other than that it is happening on his watch. The Republican led Congress was supposed to hold the Bush admin accountable. Cheney should have been removed after the details of his involvement in the Iraq war pitch. Rove and Gonzalez should have been thrown in jail for tampering with the Justice Dept and for Rove's contempt of Congress. When the Dems took over Congress they started moves in those directions but they put no teeth in their cries for accountability because they had their eyes on the next election. Cheney needs to back off. He'll probably receive not so much as a slap on the wrist if he does. As much as I'd like to personally see him thrown in Gitmo for his crimes, I don't think that would be the best thing for our country. It's like the release of the torture pictures. It's the right thing to do but ultimately it would cause more problems than it solves.

To get things back on the thread's track, here's a relevant opinion piece. Dowd's firing on all cylinders in this one May 13, 2009 OP-ED COLUMNIST Rogue Diva of Doom By MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON When Bush 41 was ramping up to the Gulf War, assembling a coalition to fight Saddam, Jimmy Carter sent a letter to members of the U.N. Security Council urging them not to rush into conflict without further exploring a negotiated solution. The first President Bush and other Republicans in Washington considered this treasonous, a former president trying to thwart a sitting one, lobbying foreign diplomats to oppose his own country on a war resolution. In 2002, when Bush Junior was ramping up to his war against Saddam, Al Gore made a speech trying to slow down that war resolution, pointing out that pivoting from Osama to Saddam for no reason, initiating “pre-emptive” war, and blowing off our allies would undermine the war on terror. Charles Krauthammer called Gore’s speech “a disgrace.” Michael Kelly, his fellow Washington Post columnist, called it “vile” and “contemptible.” Newt Gingrich said that the former vice president asserting that W. was making America less safe was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate.” “I think the president should be doing what he thinks is best as commander in chief,” Gingrich said flatly. Now, however, Gingrich backs Dick Cheney when he asserts that President Obama has made America less safe. Asked by Bob Schieffer on Sunday how America could torture when it made a mockery of our ideals, Cheney blithely gave an answer that surely would have been labeled treasonous by Rush Limbaugh, if a Democratic ex-vice president had said it about a Republican president. “Well, then you’d have to say that, in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America,” Doomsday Dick said. Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva. Just as Jeb Bush and other Republicans are trying to get kinder and gentler, Cheney has popped out of his dungeon, scary organ music blaring, to carry on his nasty campaign of fear and loathing. The man who never talked is now the man who won’t shut up. The man who wouldn’t list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president’s residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy, is now endlessly yelping about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public. Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country. “Bush 41 cares about decorum and protocol,” said an official in Bush I. “I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate Cheney acting out. He is giving the whole party a black eye just as Jeb is out there trying to renew the party.” Cheney unleashed, egged on by the combative Lynne and Liz, is pretty much the same as Cheney underground: He’s batty, and he thinks he was the president. W. admired Cheney’s brass (he used another word) but grew increasingly skeptical of him, the more he learned about foreign policy himself, and the more he got pulled into a diplomatic mode by Condi in the second term. There were even reports of W. doing a funny Cheney imitation and that it dawned on him that Cheney and Rummy represented a scofflaw, paranoid Nixon cell within his White House. “Toward the end, 43 was just as confused as anybody about what makes Cheney tick,” said a Bush family loyalist. Cheney’s numskull ideas — he still loves torture (dubbed “13th-century” stuff by Bob Woodward), Gitmo and scaring the bejesus out of Americans — are not only fixed, they’re jejune. He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable. W.’s dark surrogate father is trying to pull the G.O.P. into a black hole of zealotry, just as the sensible brother who lost his future to the scamp brother is trying to get his career back on track. When Cheney was in the first Bush administration, he was odd man out. Poppy, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell corralled Cheney’s “Genghis Khan” side, as it was known, and his “rough streak.” Cheney didn’t care for Powell even then. But with W., “Back Seat” — Cheney’s Secret Service name in the Ford administration — clambered up front. Then he totaled the car. And no amount of yapping on TV is going to change that when history is written.

I was replying to what I perceived as the recent trend by many on the right to posture themselves as Reaganites these days. You hear it from folks like Hannity all of the time. And many of those same people spend a lot of energy defending Bush era actions. They ignored the fiscal irresponsibility of their reign, the trend towards a larger/more intrusive government and embraced nation building. Now they seem to want to cherry pick the Reagan legacy in an effort to define a direction for the party. What I posted was a quote from Reagan which dealt with our joining the UN Convention against torture. I did so in an effort to point out that the current argument in favor of torture is yet one more plank that the current Republican party is ripping up from the Reagan platform. But you make a valid observation and I agree that the the rantings of a few does not define the party. The choice of McCain might be interpreted as a rebuke to the neo-con legacy. Then again, McCain may have simply appeared as the best chance for retaining power. I think it was likely both. I honestly do wish the Republican party well in its rebuilding phase. I agree with a lot of what it used to stand for. As in most arguments, the real solution is somewhere in the middle which means "compromise". Binary (with us or against us) thinkers are bad for the country.

Thanks (again, as we can always count on you) for the concise position on the lack of effectiveness using "enhanced interrogation techniques". But one of the problems that I have with the torture proponents is their argument that it does produce actionable intelligence and therefore, these techniques are ok to employ. My position is that waterboarding is torture regardless of whether or not it produces any good intel. (It's like saying "Yea, I stole that guys car, I mean, I "reallocated" it, but I got a great deal. Surely you can't disagree that I saved a lot of money) The fact that it is ineffective and counterproductive is simply reinforcement of that argument.

You lost me.

US Code regarding torture Even the Bush administration admitted it fit the defintion of the threat of imminent death. Nice try though.

From your previous assertion that the status of waterboarding as torture is "conditional" and from this reply earlier in this thread. Not that simple but, i feel the application applied in our case, no

[facepalm] that is exactly how I feel when responding to you! Thanks Then don't respond to me. Try responding specifically to the "research" follow up questions that Marg asks you. Maybe we'll learn something that you think we've missed. Until then I'm satisfied that you're satisfied with a double standard as evidenced by your "conditional" view of the "complicated" question as to whether or not waterboarding is torture.

[facepalm]