I agree with Rachel on this point. Our service men and women oppose torture, even when it is called enhanced interrogation, for valid, practical reasons, and some for humanitarian reasons as well. The Republicans would do well to distance themselves from Sanitarium. He’s to eager to shoot off his mouth trying to curry favor with the basest elements in the party.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I agree with Rachel on this point. Our service men and women oppose torture, even when it is called enhanced interrogation, for valid, practical reasons, and some for humanitarian reasons as well. The Republicans would do well to distance themselves from Sanitarium. He’s to eager to shoot off his mouth trying to curry favor with the basest elements in the party.

Santorum is next to last in the polls.

Republicans don’t need you or the MadCow to direct them who to vote for. You idiots voted for Obama, and we see how well that’s turned out, numbnuts.

Did she ask her friend at Air America to apologize for saying the only thing McCain has done is get captured and poked with bamboo sticks when he ran in 2008? I forget which one said it but I was shocked and the MSM didn’t say a word. It was sick. But Rachel didn’t have a problem then… why does she have one now???

If someone can help me with which scumbag said this it would be great. I know it was a woman.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I agree with Rachel on this point. Our service men and women oppose torture…

I assume you have some evidence, perhaps a poll or two, to support this claim.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I agree with Rachel on this point. Our service men and women oppose torture, even when it is called enhanced interrogation, for valid, practical reasons, and some for humanitarian reasons as well. The Republicans would do well to distance themselves from Sanitarium. He’s to eager to shoot off his mouth trying to curry favor with the basest elements in the party.

Oh please, you would agree with Rachel on any point. If she told you tomorrow the sky was plaid you would agree with her on that point too.

ImNotBlue said:
THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I agree with Rachel on this point. Our service men and women oppose torture…

I assume you have some evidence, perhaps a poll or two, to support this claim.

You’re denser than bread pudding.

JasonMays said:
Santorum is next to last in the polls.

Perhaps, but he is out there throwing mud all about. That’s not a good thing for Republicans at this point. The general electorate has enough concerns about the radical nature of the party.

Did Rachel tell youto write this sentence Colby?:
“One of the characteristics that makes Rachel Maddow stand out from her opinion media peers is that, even though she is a proud progressive, she is no blinded by her ideology to the point she cannot call bs on what she clearly deems as dopey rhetoric targeting a conservative”

Honestly, that statement is so laughable, she IS blinded by her ideology, and this request for an apology has nothing to do with McCain, it has everything to do with Rachel just attacking another conservative.

It’s kind of like NOW coming out and asking for the IMF guy to resign, when they gave slick a pass at indimidating an intern into giving him bjs and then lying about it to the court.

Just more evidence of double standards from the liberal, blinded by their ideology, lefty so-called journos.

HEADLINE : Rachel Maddow Must Apologize To Us ” real ” Americans …… period, Amen.

Wednesday . Santorum’s turn in the barrel .

Maddow genuinely concerned about the feelings of Republican Senators .

Barack Must Go said:
HEADLINE : Rachel Maddow Must Apologize To Us ” real ” Americans …… period, Amen.

I guess it’s not too surprising you’re intimidated by intelligent and articulate women.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Sanitarium

As the lone nonfemale member of the Texas Red Hat Society , Robert is sensitive and caring about others feelings .

Calling a person Sanitarium was clearly a missprint on his part , because one would have to be a real StephenSOB to do that on purpose .

The Lantern of Truth said:
As the lone nonfemale member of the Texas Red Hat Society , Robert is sensitive and caring about others feelings .

Calling a person Sanitarium was clearly a missprint on his part , because one would have to be a real StephenSOB to do that on purpose .

I can’t speak for Robert, but I did it intentionally. Sanitarium is a nut case. But, I am thankful for him. The longer he is around emitting gas, the nuttier the party as a whole looks.

Sanitarium/Newt ’12!

@ tatboy

Is this the one?

“RHODES: Of course he (McCain) became very friendly with the Vietnamese. They called him the Prince. He was well treated actually. And he was well treated because he traded these propaganda interviews for good treatment. So look, it’s a horrible story anyway you cut it, anyway you look at it, any way you you you deal with it.

But, it’s not the story Fred Thompson told. Nor is it the story Rudy Giuliani told. Nor is it the story Sarah Palin told. Nor is it the story anybody. Cindy McCain knew to limit herself to ‘I think what my husband did in Vietnam was heroic’ because she knows the truth too.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt8Sgt6K9YE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Maybe she has since apologized?!

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
You’re denser than bread pudding.

Yes, thank you for responding with substance and not a personal insult.

It’s refreshing to see someone who so often complains about the posts of others, not be hypocritical, and stick to the standards they themselves demand of others.

I’ll read over that evidence now. Thanks!

Rachel of all people could not take the High road on this one…..

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I guess it’s not too surprising you’re intimidated by intelligent and articulate women.

Oh I’m sorry I didn’t know we had moved on ( .org ) to Dylan Ratigan . I thought we were still on Maddow. I’ll try to keep up better next time

realitycheck said:
@ tatboy Is this the one? “RHODES: Of course he (McCain) became very friendly with the Vietnamese. They called him the Prince. He was well treated actually. And he was well treated because he traded these propaganda interviews for good treatment. So look, it’s a horrible story anyway you cut it, anyway you look at it, any way you you you deal with it. But, it’s not the story Fred Thompson told. Nor is it the story Rudy Giuliani told. Nor is it the story Sarah Palin told. Nor is it the story anybody. Cindy McCain knew to limit herself to ‘I think what my husband did in Vietnam was heroic’ because she knows the truth too.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt8Sgt6K9YE&feature=youtube_gdata_player Maybe she has since apologized?!

Nope…. but that one is quite nice. There was a person that said that McCain was never qualified to be prez because all he did was fail as a pilot, get captured and poked with sticks.

Colby wrote “One of the characteristics that makes Rachel Maddow stand out from her opinion media peers is that, even though she is a proud progressive, she is no blinded by her ideology to the point she cannot call bs on what she clearly deems as dopey rhetoric targeting a conservative”

LOL. She’s attacking a conservative, which is what she does. While I see the potential for her to develop into a more objective pundit, she remains a very myopic liberal commentator. Predictable, liberal and actually boring too. Not a good combination.

As to ‘proud progressives’, I completely disagree. Liberals stopped calling themselves liberals for re-branding purposes and now use the term progressives. So, if they really are proud, they’d call themselves liberals. I don’t even see the point of the re-branding effort. No one is being fooled.

Any liberal who thinks they’re fooling ANYONE by using the term progressives is being silly. And lacks pride in their ideology.

It’s hard to not notice the number of MSNBC pop-ups and the number of MSNBC clips on this site. Let’s face it, you might want to follow a little less MSNBC and give CNN a bit more coverage. Certainly that’s what viewers are doing….

ImNotBlue said:
Yes, thank you for responding with substance and not a personal insult.

It’s refreshing to see someone who so often complains about the posts of others, not be hypocritical, and stick to the standards they themselves demand of others.

I’ll read over that evidence now. Thanks!

I realize that you are accustomed to a Phan Klub site in which you are told what to think and say, but you’re not particularly dumb. Do a Google search. “Military Opposed to Torture”. You’ll get more information that you can process. And, it only stands to reason, doesn’t it? Our refusal to torture has long been the greatest protection we have against our troops being tortured. Not infallible to be sure. But, then neither is a condom, but it is foolish not to use one, isn’t it? Now, I’m not one to say that the military gets the sole and final word in such matters, but in this, they are the stake holders, aren’t they? And, they have some pretty sound arguments about the general efficacy of torture. The great believers and proponents of torture in America are not the military, not the services. They tend to be chicken hawks who stay as far away from military service as possible. Big Dick and Liz Cheney are their poster children. Sanitarium is in the collage of the “Also Presenters”. You know this is correct. You also know it’s non-ideological, so stop the intellectual dishonesty.

realitycheck said:
And he was well treated because he traded these propaganda interviews for good treatment.

Please put your head in a toilet and flush.

Ahh come on Rachel, having the name “Santorum” is pretty torturous.

One of the characteristics that makes Rachel Maddow stand out from her opinion media peers is that, even though she is a proud progressive, she is no blinded by her ideology to the point she cannot call bs on what she clearly deems as dopey rhetoric targeting a conservative.

Targeting what conservative?

The Lantern of Truth said:
As the lone nonfemale member of the Texas Red Hat Society , Robert is sensitive and caring about others feelings .

Calling a person Sanitarium was clearly a missprint on his part , because one would have to be a real StephenSOB to do that on purpose .

Fake King is Mark Schultz not Robert Stephenson.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I realize that you are accustomed to a Phan Klub site in which you are told what to think and say, but you’re not particularly dumb.

What is this “Phan Klub” you speak of? You insist that I spend time there, yet I’m not sure what you mean.

I wonder, who is more obssessed with this “Klub,” you or Bovine (aka: Skippy)? Of course, it’s highly probably that you two are one in the same, so there’s always that.

Do a Google search. “Military Opposed to Torture”. You’ll get more information that you can process.

Ah… I guess I just wasn’t aware that I had to do YOUR research for you. I thought, you know, if someone made a claim, that it was their job to back it up.

Guess I was wrong.

And, it only stands to reason, doesn’t it? Our refusal to torture has long been the greatest protection we have against our troops being tortured.

Yes, Daniel Pearl is very glad we don’t torture. Clearly, our policy has a great effect on our enemies.

Not infallible to be sure. But, then neither is a condom, but it is foolish not to use one, isn’t it?

Is there any actual evidence that our policy has ANY effect on how we are treated by AQ? Anything? Or are you going to insist that I once again do your research for you?

Now, I’m not one to say that the military gets the sole and final word in such matters, but in this, they are the stake holders, aren’t they? And, they have some pretty sound arguments about the general efficacy of torture.

And every single one of them feel this way? Really?

The great believers and proponents of torture in America are not the military, not the services. They tend to be chicken hawks who stay as far away from military service as possible. Big Dick and Liz Cheney are their poster children. Sanitarium is in the collage of the “Also Presenters”.

Uh-huh… and where did you and Maddow serve? Oh, that’s right… you’re only allowed to advocate a military action or technique if you’ve served. If you haven’t served, you can only advocate non-military solutions, and work to limit their abilities. It’s not hypocritical… it’s just a different standard.

You know this is correct. You also know it’s non-ideological, so stop the intellectual dishonesty.

And what “intellectual dishonesty” might that be? Where I ask you for evidence, and then mock you inability to provide any? That’s “dishonest?”

Hmm… apparently we have different definitions of “dishonest.” I see it as not telling the truth… you see it as “disagreeing with you.” Odd.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
You’re denser than bread pudding.

Nice non-answer, douchebag. Gee, troll much?

ImNotBlue said:
What is this “Phan Klub” you speak of? You insist that I spend time there, yet I’m not sure what you mean.

I wonder, who is more obssessed with this “Klub,” you or Bovine (aka: Skippy)? Of course, it’s highly probably that you two are one in the same, so there’s always that.

Ah… I guess I just wasn’t aware that I had to do YOUR research for you. I thought, you know, if someone made a claim, that it was their job to back it up.

Guess I was wrong.

Yes, Daniel Pearl is very glad we don’t torture. Clearly, our policy has a great effect on our enemies.

Is there any actual evidence that our policy has ANY effect on how we are treated by AQ? Anything? Or are you going to insist that I once again do your research for you?

And every single one of them feel this way? Really?

Uh-huh… and where did you and Maddow serve? Oh, that’s right… you’re only allowed to advocate a military action or technique if you’ve served. If you haven’t served, you can only advocate non-military solutions, and work to limit their abilities. It’s not hypocritical… it’s just a different standard.

And what “intellectual dishonesty” might that be? Where I ask you for evidence, and then mock you inability to provide any? That’s “dishonest?”

Hmm… apparently we have different definitions of “dishonest.” I see it as not telling the truth… you see it as “disagreeing with you.” Odd.

You are so intellectually dishonest:

1. As to the Klub, the answer is self-evident. You post there, and you synch into that mentality or lack thereof very well indeed.

2. As to the research, I did it. I’ve read perhaps 100 of the articles that came up. I know the Bushophiles never thought any attention ought be paid to generals when they asked for more troops or new strategies, but one of the first articles you’d find if your ideological core weren’t so fragile is a compendium on military leaders’ views of torture. Across the board, opposed.

3. As to Daniel Pearl, he wasn’t in the military and his assassins were not in the military. You’re mixing codfish with attache cases. Again. If you want to change the topic to law enforcement’s use of torture, do it, but don’t try to cloud an issue because it’s not breaking in your favor.

4. Maddow did not serve, but she is not advocating wholesale sadism like the Cheney’s and Sanitarium are. Now, you’re mixing gift wrap with granite as you struggle for a failed and feeble counterpoint.

If you want an honest discussion, drop by anytime. If you just want to mindlessly moan and vacuously engage in senseless recriminations, head over to the Klub and get into a vigorous discussion of the News Hounds.

Torture is having to listen to Rachael Maddow comment on anything.

THE FAKE ROYAL KING said:
As to Daniel Pearl, he wasn’t in the military and his assassins were not in the military.

Really? Which military was zarqawi or ubl in?

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
You are so intellectually dishonest:

And here comes GOLD!

1. As to the Klub, the answer is self-evident. You post there, and you synch into that mentality or lack thereof very well indeed.

Really? So you know I post there, how? You must read it a lot to know that I post there. Why? Why do you read it so often, if it’s “so bad?”

Oh, and when was the last time I posted there? What have I said? Prove your claim.

2. As to the research, I did it. I’ve read perhaps 100 of the articles that came up. I know the Bushophiles never thought any attention ought be paid to generals when they asked for more troops or new strategies, but one of the first articles you’d find if your ideological core weren’t so fragile is a compendium on military leaders’ views of torture. Across the board, opposed.

Ah yes, the link you apparently haven’t figured out how to copy/paste in, and that I must search for myself if I want to “prove” your argument.

Although, I seem to remember the military asking for more troops, and Obama not providing quite what they wanted… or at the very least “dithering” and taking his time in providing them with the request. I wonder, did you complain about that? Apparently, it was bad when Bush didn’t provide them with their requests, but it’s okay for Obama?

3. As to Daniel Pearl, he wasn’t in the military and his assassins were not in the military. You’re mixing codfish with attache cases. Again. If you want to change the topic to law enforcement’s use of torture, do it, but don’t try to cloud an issue because it’s not breaking in your favor.

Very true… Pearl wasn’t even a military person, and yet he was tortured and murdered. How did our “non-torture” policy help him?

Oh, and those “non-military” folks who did it… those ARE the people we’re talking about. Are you saying we’re allowed to “torture” them, because they aren’t actually in the military? What a right-wing opinion you have.

4. Maddow did not serve, but she is not advocating wholesale sadism like the Cheney’s and Sanitarium are. Now, you’re mixing gift wrap with granite as you struggle for a failed and feeble counterpoint.

Exactly… Maddow, despite not serving, is allowed to give her opinion of what the military should and shouldn’t do. Santorum (Do you really think your moronic nicknames help your argument? Personally, I think they just help prove my argument that you’re an obnoxious and arrogant man-child.), on the other hand, is apparently not allowed to offer his opinion, BECAUSE he hasn’t served.

Like I said… if you haven’t served, according to you, you’re only allowed to advocate a certain position. If you veer from that position, you’re just a “chicken-hawk.” It’s a double standard based on your OWN opinion and ideological rigidness. Too bad the world doesn’t actually play by YOUR rules.

If you want an honest discussion, drop by anytime. If you just want to mindlessly moan and vacuously engage in senseless recriminations, head over to the Klub and get into a vigorous discussion of the News Hounds.

Well, apparently you think I spend a lot of time there… although, clearly not as much as you.

But I don’t really need an invitation from you, or your approval. Thanks, though.

Rachel must apologize to me for her pop-up ads.

THE REAL RABID KOOK said:
3. As to Daniel Pearl, he wasn’t in the military and his assassins were not in the military. You’re mixing codfish with attache cases.

Neither are those who conducted waterboarding, nor those who were waterboarded or might find themselves facing it in the future*, Kook. It seems you’ve got the military crossed with whatever it is you’re trying to mash into an argument.

*Excepting those members of OUR military that WE waterboard as a matter of training.

WCinWI said:
Rachel must apologize to me for her pop-up ads.

I’m not much of a fan of Rachel’s show, although I do like her as a panelist on MTP. I also like her ads. The one in which she describes how our present national infrastructure is a gift to us from our grandparents strikes me as so true. And, the way we are neglecting our infrastructure and not building new infrastructure strikes me as a short-changing our grandchildren. Rachel’s highlighting a very dangerous national myopia. That’s a message we need to hear.

As to pop-ups, I agree. I hate them.

Pablo said:
Neither are those who conducted waterboarding, nor those who were waterboarded or might find themselves facing it in the future*, Kook. It seems you’ve got the military crossed with whatever it is you’re trying to mash into an argument.

*Excepting those members of OUR military that WE waterboard as a matter of training.

But see, you’ve hit on the crucial distinction here, something the idiot Jeff and the intellectually dishonest INB are not able to do. The discussion here involved Sanitarium disagreeing with McCain on torture. McCain’s comments were about military torture from a military perspective. There is another discussion to be had about law enforcement torture. I happen to be opposed to that as well, but the arguments are distinct and apart from one another in large measure. The efficacy argument doesn’t have a role in the military context, but it may in the police context. In the military context, it is clear refraining from torture doesn’t guarantee that our troops will be subjected to torture, but our military engaging in torture insures that our troops will be tortured. That involves an analytical complexity that Jeff and INB lack, but that I know you have. And whether you wholly agree with it or not, I know you understand the distinction.

THE REAL RABID KOOK said:
McCain’s comments were about military torture from a military perspective.

What remarks are those, Kook? I take it they’re not his recent remarks about his discussions with the CIA Director.

When was the last time a liberal apologized to a conservative for anything? Rick Santorum doesn’t have to apologize to John McCommie McRino. It’s John that needs to apologize for pretending to be a Republican.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

McCain certainly has a right to his point of view given his experience. He also has the right to be wrong in comparing the barbarism that torture becomes in a barbarous regime with the enhanced interrogations employed by a non barbarous state. The histrionics of the left has it’s following, sadly that’s the lead McCain is providing, nothing more.

Did Santorum say that McCain doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding torture? Yes.
Did McCain seek clarification regarding torture and the courier info re OBL? Yes.
Is Santorum wrong? Yes.

Rachel is admonishing the GoogleProblem for his asinine comments.

Naturally, the RWers on this board have to jump all over her. Why can’t you RWers get over your anti-Rachel stance and evaluate what she said and make a decision?

In this case, Santorum should apologize to John McCain.

((And to his wife, children and pets for having the infamous Google problem))

WHarropson said:
comparing the barbarism that torture becomes in a barbarous regime with the enhanced interrogations employed by a non barbarous state.

Wow. One of the most ignorant things Ive ever read, even for the idiots on this site. And Id be willing to bet you call yourself a “Christian” You are CINO..Christian in name only. Jesus would support this? Really? Im sorry if you think, if they do it its ok for us to do it. But maybe Im the idiot who thinks America is better than that, or stronger than that. So they knocked down a couple of buildings. Thats it. Were still here. We didnt need to torture.

Mosesdinoark said:
So they knocked down a couple of buildings. Thats it. Were still here.

And we got them a mite wet. That’s it. They’re here now, and they’re just fine. In great health.

gordonbloyershow said:
Torture is having to listen to Rachael Maddow comment on anything.

I think for you, listening to the truth is torture – isn’t that what you really mean?

WHarropson said:
McCain certainly has a right to his point of view given his experience. He also has the right to be wrong in comparing the barbarism that torture becomes in a barbarous regime with the enhanced interrogations employed by a non barbarous state. The histrionics of the left has it’s following, sadly that’s the lead McCain is providing, nothing more.

Pablo said:
And we got them a mite wet. That’s it. They’re here now, and they’re just fine. In great health.

Interesting point. Its as if ‘our’ torture is ‘more civilized.’ Okay we have more civilized torture. But when McCain was tortured they didnt kill him or blind him or cut off his arms – so that must have been like ‘medium-torture.’ This of course in contrast to the likes of say, vivisection.

We really need a rating system here dont we:

+ US Torture = civilized torture by a civilized society.

+ 1970′s N. Vietnam Torture = barbaric torture by a barbaric regime.

+Nazi Torture = modern-industrialized yet very-barbaric torture.

It all makes sense now…

Pablo said:
And we got them a mite wet. That’s it. They’re here now, and they’re just fine. In great health.

I dont think Jesus is picking you Saturday.

Nothing wrong with a nice cool drink o water. ;)

WHarropson said:
McCain certainly has a right to his point of view given his experience. He also has the right to be wrong in comparing the barbarism that torture becomes in a barbarous regime with the enhanced interrogations employed by a non barbarous state. The histrionics of the left has it’s following, sadly that’s the lead McCain is providing, nothing more.

That is the most meaningless gibberish on this entire thread. And that is saying a lot.
“Enhanced interrogation” is a euphemism for torture.
The enemy TORTURES. We “employ enhanced interrogation.”
“My wife is a slut.” if she sleeps around.
“My girlfriend adds spice to my life.” (At least until my wife finds out.)
Santorum (come, kids, and hold your dead fetal brother) never served in uniform.
McCain was a POW.
As Groucho said, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Jaurez said:
Nothing wrong with a nice cool drink o water. ;)

Let’s schedule you for one. I’ll serve.

Glackin said:
Jaurez said:
Nothing wrong with a nice cool drink o water. ;)

Let’s schedule you for one. I’ll serve.

That’s not nice. “Coward” is Jeff’s middle name.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I guess it’s not too surprising you’re intimidated by intelligent and articulate women.

what do intelligent and articulate women have to do with keith olbermann’s nephew?…

lane said:
It’s hard to not notice the number of MSNBC pop-ups and the number of MSNBC clips on this site. Let’s face it, you might want to follow a little less MSNBC and give CNN a bit more coverage. Certainly that’s what viewers are doing….

i assume msnbc is paying for the privilege of those pop-ups… as for coverage, if cnn had any anchors who are half as batshit crazy as those on msnbc then you’d see more of them as well…

Rick Santorum will be one of the earliest presidential candidates to drop out of the race. There are long shot candidates with an attempt to make an impact on the race such as Michelle Bachman who could have a strong showing in Iowa. However, Santorum would need a miracle to gain traction.

MASSMURDERMEDIA said:
what do intelligent and articulate women have to do with keith olbermann’s nephew?…

That is almost as funny as it is original.
Your mother must be very proud of you.

I remember McCain saying the NV tortured him and “they broke me”. He was given a pass at the time on that comment but I always wondered what he meant. Did they break him and he gave them information? It’s long since past the time when we have to be afraid to ask McCain questions. He is not in the military, he is a politician and so loses the general protection offered by society to people who have served in the military.

dougx said:
I remember McCain saying the NV tortured him and “they broke me”. He was given a pass at the time on that comment but I always wondered what he meant. Did they break him and he gave them information? It’s long since past the time when we have to be afraid to ask McCain questions. He is not in the military, he is a politician and so loses the general protection offered by society to people who have served in the military.

Where did you serve? What happened to you? If you do not honor his service, what have you done that would make us think you have contributed enough to have YOUR opinion considered?
Or. are you just another armchair chickenhawk who loves the sight of blood, other than your own?

The Left rallies to the guy they called Insane McCain and Gramps. Truly tugs at ones heartstrings.

Glackin said:
Where did you serve? What happened to you? If you do not honor his service, what have you done that would make us think you have contributed enough to have YOUR opinion considered?
Or. are you just another armchair chickenhawk who loves the sight of blood, other than your own?

No chicken hawk here. I’m pretty much a libertarian, against the Iraq invasion and Libya. McCain is the arch hawk. He’s the guy getting men killed everyday so save your questions for him. Don’t let these guys hide behind that old uniform. If they are affecting policy, then they are not off limits.

dougx said:
No chicken hawk here. I’m pretty much a libertarian, against the Iraq invasion and Libya. McCain is the arch hawk. He’s the guy getting men killed everyday so save your questions for him. Don’t let these guys hide behind that old uniform. If they are affecting policy, then they are not off limits.

There are no sacred cows. But to ignore experience is to fall into Santayana’s trap.
This country had its Funston. It renounced that in 1945. To argue we should adjust our morals to fit our opponents is to say we have none. To argue the ends justify the means is to reject morality.
It is wrong to measure our society against our enemies. May we always be better than them.
We must decide our course by asking; Is it moral? Is it legal? Will it benefit us?
If we don’t ask that, we abandon what made this country.

donalan said:
Interesting point. Its as if ‘our’ torture is ‘more civilized.’ Okay we have more civilized torture. But when McCain was tortured they didnt kill him or blind him or cut off his arms – so that must have been like ‘medium-torture.’ This of course in contrast to the likes of say, vivisection.

Have you ever noticed that John mcCain cannot lift his arms more than about a third of the way up? I believe he was maimed for life in Viet nam. Yes we interrogate to the fullest extent without maiming for the sole purpose of saving lives, not for the enjoyment.

While McCain is hardly one of my favorite politicians I have always respected him because he is a veteran who served our country. This little punk santorum needs to be educated by a few Vietnam Veterans! Don’t get me wrong, I am a democrat who protested that war but I NEVER disrespected the men who fought in it. And why do they bother calling it ‘enhanced interrogation’ when it is torture? That makes as much sense as calling rape an ‘aggressive sexual assault’!

Thank you all for a conversation without vitriol.
If you want a look at when the US was VERY wrong, look up:
Gen. Funston
Phillipine Insurrection/Aguinaldo

Glackin said:
There are no sacred cows. But to ignore experience is to fall into Santayana’s trap.
This country had its Funston. It renounced that in 1945. To argue we should adjust our morals to fit our opponents is to say we have none. To argue the ends justify the means is to reject morality.
It is wrong to measure our society against our enemies. May we always be better than them.
We must decide our course by asking; Is it moral? Is it legal? Will it benefit us?
If we don’t ask that, we abandon what made this country.

I’m sure we would agree that there is a consensus that we shouldn’t just scoop up people in Iraq, put them in a prison, and start torturing them. That was basically an unnecessary war on our part so it’s not the same as the theoretical situation where 5 nuclear bombs are ticking away in different American cities and there is a time limit involved. It’s a moot argument because any president will order that anything be done to get the information. Morals or no morals, survival comes first., the Constitution not being a suicide pact.

The fact that people like McCain want endless war means that atrocities will continue. So there he contradicts himself. He knows better than anyone that wars are not clean. Raining bombs down on people and their legs and arms blown off, their skin peeling off, – isn’t that much worse than the much heralded water boarding? The way to stop atrocities is to not go to war unless you absolutely have to. McCain is old school. He will argue the rules of war with righteous indignation while millions die for regional sway and power.

Glackin said:
That is almost as funny as it is original.
Your mother must be very proud of you.

my mother is dead, you insensitive bastard… but she was proud of me!… (wipes tear away)…

Hopefully Santorum is a Harold Camping Christian. He won’t be around for the election. (Fingers crossed.)

Here we go again! The defenders of waterboarding are back in the limelight. It’s interesting that these ex-Bush-men always seem to argue in favor of water torture (waterboarding) by using pragmatics. They’re argument is, “because it works, therefore we should do it” They’re consideration of whether it is morally or ethically right does not come in to play. This may be a reflection of their moral compass in general. Violate the law, cheat, torture and even kill to get the job done, seems to be their way.
http://politicsdisgust.blogspot.com

WHarropson said:
McCain certainly has a right to his point of view given his experience. He also has the right to be wrong in comparing the barbarism that torture becomes in a barbarous regime with the enhanced interrogations employed by a non barbarous state. The histrionics of the left has it’s following, sadly that’s the lead McCain is providing, nothing more.

You will thank me for providing the link to this great essay.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BillWhittleChannel