Opinion

Opinion

Obama in denial about terrorist threat

January 3, 2010

Advertisement

— Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: “The system worked.” The attacker’s concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son’s jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaida has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”

And produces linguistic — and logical — oddities that littered Obama’s public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as “an isolated extremist.” This is the same president who, after the Fort Hood shooting, warned us “against jumping to conclusions” — code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan’s mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.

More jarring still were Obama’s references to the terrorist as a “suspect” who “allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device.” You can hear the echo of FDR: “Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor.”

Obama reassured the nation that this “suspect” had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaida in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama’s declaration that “we will not rest until we find all who were involved.” Once we’ve given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama’s terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaida training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights “the nature of those who threaten our homeland.” But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as “extremist(s).”

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

Comments

anon1958 5 years, 4 months ago

Sigh, Krauthammer.

Following is an example of meaningless dribble that all to unfortunately will be taken seriously and even be inspirational to more than a few right wing deniers of the real American way of liberty, justice and freedom.

"The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians —"

No, the president should not be saying that. There is no doubt of the magnitude of the crime that was attempted and no doubt about who the perpetrator was/is.

However we have a constitution and system of laws that must be followed. There can be no star chambers or letters cachet from a king or despot. The man is a defendant and he gets his day in court. The term "enemy combatant" is a dodge and COWARDLY retreat from the principles of the constitution which for so many men and women have sacrificed so much.

Morons like Krauthammer do not understand that we follow the rules for the people who are obviously guilty because often people who are not obviously innocent turn out to be innocent. You cannot protect the latter when you disregard due process for the former.

There is no doubt that were he alive today, Thomas Paine would rebuke Krauthammer and his ilk in the strongest terms.

HERE is a New Years message to people who think like Krauthhammer. I could let you wallow in your own shallow narcicistic cravenly and cowardly stupidity; but because I am such a good sport I will impart some wisdom upon your wretched existence.

I will make this as simple as possible for all you neocons.

1) The constitution of the United States of America is meant to protect your liberty from tyranny.

2) It is not meant to insure your safety.

3) The expected result of adhering to the principles of the constitution virtually guarantees that your personal safety will indeed be less because there can be no exceptions to due process.

Now I realize that explaining this to neocons and right wing crybabies runs the risk, albeit small, that the heads of a few rightwingers will explode and cause a terrible mess if they manage to comprehend the three preceding statements. But I cannot be held responsible for the negative effect of their lucky enlightenment.

The journal world should immediately cease publishing the besotted ravings of lily livered reactionaries like Krauthamer and his anti-American and anti-U S constitution cronies.

Orwell 5 years, 4 months ago

Well, if you can't present a substantive criticism of the president's actions but you're ideologically determined to condemn him for something, I guess you have to fall back on subjective (and pointless) criticism of his style.

More name-calling and petty whining, designed solely to aggravate division among Americans. What garbage.

jonas_opines 5 years, 4 months ago

Ha, thought it might be Thomas, but the wording was just slightly more Krauthhammer. One more point to me.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 4 months ago

Funny, the pirates Obama had executed by snipers to free American hostages are not factored in Kraut's predetermined conclusion. That inconvenient fact, of course, supports neither the author's premise, nor his objective.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Poor Charles....he doesn't get freedom of speech like the psycho-babblers do when they speak of him. A uniformed soldier captured on the battlefield is considered a lawful enemy combatant under the rules of engagement. They have protections under Geneva Convention. An enemy combatant is entitled to face a military tribunal concerning his or her wartime activities. It appears that an enemy combatant can be imprisoned until all hostilities have ceased, which in the case of the war against terrorism could be indefinitely.

All of this has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Some of the things Bush did were struck down, but these basic tenants remain in effect.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_co...

So my left wingers that like to hide behind the Constitution in some cases than rewrite it in other cases, like abortion....get a grip. There are enemy combatants out there.

cato_the_elder 5 years, 4 months ago

Another incisive editorial, way over the heads of leftist cretins, from the best columnist writing in America today. His line about Pearl Harbor captures the essence of Obama's delusional foreign policy, and is an instant classic.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 4 months ago

Dear Leader has the Secret Service to protect him. He doesn't fly on commercial airliners. The rest of us are on our own.

monkeyhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

"More name-calling and petty whining, designed solely to aggravate division among Americans."

No, it more likely ~signifies~ the division. (BTW, the name-calling is a tactic straight from the progressive bible, "Rules for Radicals" - "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." http://www.psrf.org/issues/rules.jsp)

Mr. Obama jumped the shark the day he proclaimed "the police acted stupidly", though he admitted he had no details. That was when his judgment was first called into question. He now proves his slant on a regular basis.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

Oh this is great we are getting lectured about what is and not in the constitution buy Anon1958:

"I will make this as simple as possible for all you neocons.

1) The constitution of the United States of America is meant to protect your liberty from tyranny.

2) It is not meant to insure your safety.

3) The expected result of adhering to the principles of the constitution virtually guarantees that your personal safety will indeed be less because there can be no exceptions to due process." """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" OK, Anon, I will play, under your take on this position of the constitution then answer me this:

How do you justify that take on the application of the constitution that the "safety" ie life and limb is not guaranteed by the constitution,... however

"Health care is"?????

Sickness is and medical is in the constitution but defense of the nation is not???

Where in the heck did you get that??? That is exactly the opposite of what the constitution states, it states that "Defense of the Nation" comes first, and "general welfare" is like third.

You sir are the one with the "terrible comprehension"

Geeezz!

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

And more for anon in Article 1 section 8 of the U. S. Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Guess that Nebraska cannot have that sweetheart deal on Health Care!! NOr can the other states, because it has to be "uniform" throughout the United states.

MORE:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

That is a lot in there to secure and defend that is discussed in the Constitution specifically about defense, and nothing on Health Care.

Centerville 5 years, 4 months ago

No one told Zippy that being president is more than reading out loud and having your picture taken.

monkeyhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

Thomas Sowell:

"In a sense, this administration is only the end result of a long social process that includes raising successive generations with dumbed-down education in schools and colleges that have become indoctrination centers for the visions of the left. Our education system has turned out many people who have never heard any other vision and who can only learn what is wrong with the prevailing vision from bitter experience. That bitter experience now awaits them, at home and abroad." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/29/unhealthy_arrogance_99710.html

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

"In a sense, this administration is only the end result of a long social process that includes raising successive generations with dumbed-down education"

Not really. Half the country was conned by a would-be used car salesman. That has happened for decades. Once the customer finds out the car or president is a lemon, they won't shop at the same dealership or political party for a good while.

And you really can't blame obama for terrorists. Nothing in the community organizing manual says anything about what to do about idiots that have bombs in the underwear.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch....did I say torture and denial of legal rights were legal and not against the law? Nope!

I simply said we have to follow our rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention. Treatment of enemy combatants is in there and the Supreme Court has clarified what is legal and what is not. Holding them until the end of hostilities is legal. Torture is not legal.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

"How do you justify that take on the application of the constitution that the “safety” ie life and limb is not guaranteed by the constitution,… however

“Health care is”?????"

That's only liberal double talk. We are used to it.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

Loud music, cold conditions, stress and pouring water in somebodies nose is not torture. SO they are legal, and will be used again.

I don't care what kind of koolaid you drink.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

Funny, but neither Chucky, Fox, Cal or our beloved Dolph junior have said a word about the fact that the Bush administration released two of the four planners of the Detroit attack from Guantanamo so they could have "art therapy" in Saudi Arabia....that seems a bit more delusional than anything Obama has done.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

I'd like to see proof that anyone, japanese or whatever, has ever been hanged solely for waterboarding a person.

Also, learn the difference between hanged and hung. Blazing Saddles has a pretty cool line illustrating the ignorance of those that don't know the difference.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch:

"leedavid,

You applied the enemy combatants argument of the Bush Administration regarding the legality of torture and then denied that you were defending the torture of the Bush Administration.

Such a presentation makes you look either dishonest or ignorant. Which is it?"

I presented the legailty of the enemy combatant arguement as given to the supreme court. They failed to rule against enemy combatants in general.

"Yet in the face of this unprecedented challenge to democracy, all the Court could manage, in a series of equivocal and confused rulings, was a limited rebuff to the most extreme assertions of executive power. It could not summon a majority to decisively repudiate the authoritarian actions of the Bush administration and, notwithstanding its warnings of the dire implications of the government’s denial of due process to alleged terrorists, did not order the release of a single “enemy combatant,” including the US citizens who have been held incommunicado for more than two years in a state of legal limbo."

Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/cour-j02.shtml

Show me supporting Bush on terrorism and you got a point. I think you owe me an apology. Unless of course you are dishonest or ignorant. Your choice

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Change to:

Show me supporting Bush on torture and you got a point. I think you owe me an apology. Unless of course you are dishonest or ignorant. Your choice

I never said I wasn't and idiot.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

I guess this is why Obama has upped troop numbers in Pakistan, is focusing on Yemen, has said repeatedly that we are at war with the terrorists, and continues cruise missile strikes on Al Quaeda safe houses.

Yeah, really sounds like he is in denial about terrorists.

Get a grip, Krauthammer. You and Dick Cheney need to stop lying.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Yourworsenightmare:

".... has said repeatedly that we are at war with the terrorists."

Excuse me...Obama said what?

"A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) ... please pass this on to your speechwriters". Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live "overseas contingency operations"."

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/obama-war-terror-overseas-contingency-operations

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Asbestos,

We hung a Japanese general for waterboarding after World War II. "

Sorry you idiot, but their "warerboarding" is not the same technique we used. This is another "talking point" from the left, DailyKooks, MoveOn, etc. It will not make one whit of difference if one of these "Ali Kaboom's" eventually succeeds.

The difference in Japanese was they actually "physically evacuated" salt water from the lungs, so they were not using the same technique, they were actually getting the lungs to fill up with water but slowley. The American technique disallows the buildup of water in the lungs.

"The Japanese used salt-water which, in and of itself, cause deaths on it's own. When that wouldn't work, the interrogators would beat the subject while they were "drowning". To take it to a whole other level, they would lower the board and then jump on the stomachs of the individuals causing internal damage and vomiting. This would essentially "purge" the system to start all over again."

So again Porchie, you don't have a clue.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch:

“I never said I wasn't and idiot.” –- leedavid

Oh I am dyslexic and get words mixed up....confuse and with an...I read what I write and it seems correct, but it isn't just getting old. I did not just make fun of dyslexics...I am one.

Please show me the quote where I support torture? I never have. I have always felt if I support us torturing terrorist suspects than I just supported teorrist torturing Americans....

Broder, I simply quoted and provided a source where his character might not be at the level you stated it was. No dishonesty there it was a direct quote. If there was any dishonesty to it, which I doubt, it was the author not me.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

We waterboard our own special ops soldiers. It cant be all that illegal. Also, I know from experience that each and every soldier is put into a gas chamber full of CS gas which has the immediate effect of preventing you from breathing, and the temporary effect of rendering you blind and burning wherever your skin is exposed.

My idea of torture is pulling out fingernails and breaking bones, not fooling someone into thinking they are drowning, putting underwear on their head or making them listen to crappy music.

When you start defining harsh treatment like waterboarding as torture, you are degrading the meaning of the word for purely political purposes.

Harry Tuttle 5 years, 4 months ago

We have meant the enemy, and they is us.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

Porchie,

I guess you are ignorant to the fact that all those people that lop off heads, cut off arms, and generally have no respect for human life are dictating what we do to them.

In Africa, In the middle east, in larger parts of asia, and mostly centered around tin horn dictators or radical Islamists, this behavior should be eradicated.

Right now the "Underwear Bomber", is using his "right to remain silent" and we know there are others out there.

How many planes are you gonna let go down, and how many people murdered before you give up your academic influenced "moral equivalence" and moral outrage against the United States?

Why do so many of you people on the left hate America?

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

If you do not stand up for The United States of America...

then you are lying down for our enemies.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch....once again getting all nutso. Enemy combatans was never used by Bush or anyone else for torture. In the case before the Supreme Court which I have referenced from the beginning, was about the status of enemy combatans and guess what? It was not about torture. That is just you making things up again.

Borders.... I cut and copied and gave the reference. He was invovled in illegal collection of fees. Not quiet the respected person you claimed he was.

I love your psychobabble. You make stuff up then talk about other people being dishonest. I just wonder if you were born that way or did you go to a special school for phsychobabble and lettered four years there. I keep going back and forth on that one. LOL!

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

leedavid,

Terrorism is a tactic. A war on terror is like a war on gun fire. Therefore, a war on terror is not correct. Obama has said we are at war with the terrorists, those who use terror to attack the USA.

A fine distinction, yes. But hardly the kind of thing that warrants belief that Obama does not recognize the terrorist threat.

Are the troops sent to Afghanistan, the intelligence directed at Yemen, and the cruise missile strikes also somehow evidence that Obama does not recognize the terrorist threat?

Or must you rely on turns phrase and word meaning? Pretty pathetic argument.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Clearly Mrs. Howell knows what everyone else (except you) seems to know. It's hard to find a political commentator more respected than David Broder."

Clearly there is a bunch of liberal Lamestream Media types that "have the back" of those that are spinning the news to favor liberalism.

Clearly that is what is happening.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

David Broder...I said illegal, I was mistaken. However, David did say:

During an interview in 1996, David Broder said that "It’s clear that some journalists now are in a market category where the amount of money that they can make on extracurricular activities raises, in my mind, exactly, and, clearly, in the public’s mind, exactly the same kind of conflict-of-interest questions that we are constantly raising with people in public life. . . ." [9] In June, 2008, however, Ken Silverstein, a columnist at Harper's magazine alleged that David Broder had accepted free accommodations and thousands of dollars in speaking fees from various business and healthcare groups, in one instance penning an opinion column supporting positions favored by one of the groups.[10] The Washington Post's ombudsman, wrote that Broder's acceptance of speaking fees was an apparent violation of the paper's policy on outside speeches, as was the fact that some of the groups that paid Broder also lobby Congress.[11] Howell continued that "He (Broder) also said he had cleared his speeches with Milton Coleman, deputy managing editor, or Tom Wilkinson, an assistant managing editor, but neither remembered him mentioning them."

Looks like your Ms. Howell has a memory problem or dishonest. I will let you pick which one. So it is just the case of saying one thing doing another. Typical liberal media stuff. Which is why I would guess he should not be respected by any professional media persons.

Again you say I support torture, and yet to show me saying it. A lot would call that dishonest. But based on David Broder I would have to guess you types run together. Have someone check your pilot light, cause you got the gas running.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

Porchie,

Why do you have America and American Citizens?

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

Porchie,

Why do you hate America and American Citizens?

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Doesn't take a “terrorist sympathizer” to do that. "

You would know that, because your position is that of a terrorist sympathizer.

You want more protection for a terrorist then you want for American Citizens.

I ask again, why do you hate America and American Citizens?

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch.....dyslexic behaviors always disappear when you cut and copy someone elses stuff. But give them credit. Don't worry I will send a crew over, your elevator must be stuck.

Ms. Howell? Who cares what she says, I got two people two managing editors that don't remember him clearing speeches. Now she is either wrong or lied. Again, you pick, once your elevator can go to the top floor that is. LOL!

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

I read the quotes I provided. And the managing editors say they have no recollection of approving these speeches. Again from the article:

"He (Broder) also said he had cleared his speeches with Milton Coleman, deputy managing editor, or Tom Wilkinson, an assistant managing editor, but neither remembered him mentioning them.” So Dave must be mistaken...or he is dishonest.

And you still haven't shown me supporting torture. So you might be dishonest too. I will let you decide. Porch you are such a hoot. Obama is lucky to have such a blindly loyal supporter. I never was Liberty one. LOL! Ever...That your honesty showing up again? Here is a clue, never claim to have knowledge someone is a retread unless you can prove it. And you can't because it never happened. That is three times in one thread you lied about me.

Keep it up. Looks good on you

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

"world-wide recognized"

Maybe this is the real culprit behind this discussion. I'm an American. I'm not a citizen of another country and I'm not a citizen of the world. In fact, I truly do not care what foreigners think or believe. We should base our decisions on what is best for us and on our constitution. If in a treaty we have signed, you can point out where waterboarding is defined as torture, then I will acquiesce.

I've seen it written that Gitmo is "bad PR" for America. Every time I see that, I think to myself, so what? Screw PR. America isn't in the PR business. America is in the superpower business.

Rule #1: don't ever for a minute think I care at all about what non-Americans think about America and American policy. IMHO, it is none of their business. And before you spout off, I've been to my share of foreign countries, including most of europe. I was impressed by none of them.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch....are you nuts? Really are you completely nuts?

You make reference to items which were statements made between Liberty_One and myself and you portray them as having been said to you.

I have never been Liberty One. Never spoke to a mod about you, have no idea how. Tell you what. If you are wrong you leave this board and never come back. If your right....I leave. Deal?

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch, here is the neat thing buddy. You should have looked at my profile then read my posts, you would clearly see the dyslexia.

Are you going to take me up on my offer? I am not now nor have I ever been Liberty one, or any think like that. Nor have I ever asked you to leave me alone....that is of course unless you are Jesse. Because I did say goodbye to him. Back up any of your claims.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

I don't get how Chuck can even try and pull this BS. Does anyone remember the shoe bomber? Where did the Bush administration send him: to jail, not to Guantanamo. If President Obama is simply continuing the policies of the Bush administration, then where is the Kruthammer column retroactively giving Bush crap about Richard Reid?

I thought so. Why don't you right wing nuts look in the mirror before you start calling people "delusional" or "cretins".

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Prove it....just prove it. Prove any thing your have said all day,

Well Sherlock Holmes when Johnathan talks to me about your suspicions and reads my post, checks my computer location and liberty one's...you will look just like you always do.....wrong.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

Okay Asbestos, then WTH did Bush send Richard Reid to court? It's a simple question. If he was a terrorist, and deserved to be tortured, then why is he in a supermax now?

Also, how does not wanting anyone in American custody to be tortured equal "loving terrorists" and "hating Americans".

What about the Americans who would be torturing people under your proposed system? Do you think it's right to have people doing that kind of dirty work? I think it's morally reprehensible and would much rather have my fellow citizens be free from having to deal with that kind of guilt.

Unless you only employ people who lack empathy in the FBI or CIA. That actually would be worse.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

Reply in order.

People look at me funny a lot. That happens when you think for yourself and prefer saying what you think instead of what other people want you to say. That's the cross I bear.

If you can't find the statute or treaty, I'm hip. People can't find bigfoot either, but that doesn't stop them from believing in giant apes walking around American forests. They do find scat here and there and claim it's proof of bigfoot. You can take from that metaphor what you can make from it.

I care. Your reality exists only inside your brain. Mine exists inside my brain. Both are equal. Given you inability to prove your "historical record" your "reality" argument fails. That's what happens when try arguing "reality".

America is self-sufficient enough to get by in the present, and if the crap really broke loose, we'd be self-sufficient enough to be the last country in existence. That's called American Exceptionalism, and I'm sure that's not an expression you like. It probably really pisses off all your non-American friends.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"It's a simple question. If he was a terrorist, and deserved to be tortured, then why is he in a supermax now?

Also, how does not wanting anyone in American custody to be tortured equal “loving terrorists” and “hating Americans”. "

They do not deserve to be "Tortured". But waterboarding is fine by me, and is not* torture. And you would risk American Citizens lives, by not taking this idiot into a room and pour water over his face (not intent to harm, only to intimidate, which is the definition of "coerced interrogation") so you can claim a false sense of "moral high ground"?

That means you have chosen Terrorists "comfort" over Americans "Safety". In that You hate Americans and Lover and assist terrorists.

If you are uncomfortable with that, then tough. That is your failing and problem.

""""""""""""""""""""""" "What about the Americans who would be torturing people under your proposed system?"

Again it is not "torture" it is coerced interrogation". Why is that so hard for you idiots to figure out??? In that sense, thaty are not "torturing" people, but strongly asking them questions, and is not akin to cutting hands off, using electric drills, burning people, pulling their joints out of the socket and other such real versions of bonafide "torture".

You are drawing the lines to favor Terrorists, therefore you are assisting terrorists and therefore are haters of America and American Citizens. You chose the side, no matter how much you rationalize it.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

"Where did the Bush administration send him: to jail, not to Guantanamo."

Shoe bomber was taken into custody in America. You knew that answer all along. Mousaui was the same, as is the underwear bomber. Once on American soil, they are afforded additional rights, which we are not obliged to give them if they are at gitmo.

That's the point behind gitmo, to legally deny them the rights of people in America. That may sound wrong to you, but that's how it is.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

If you can't find the statute or treaty, I'm hip.

Well, I could just go with the Geneva Conventions which has a blanket prohibition on this sort of thing. But since you want something more concrete, how about United Nations Convention Against Torture (of which the U.S. is a signatory). Torture is defined as:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

Now you want to pretend that Waterboarding isn't torture, but if you'll notice the definition isn't about exactly what you can or can not do. Most of it is about the context in which these actions are taking place. If you're inflicting pain and suffering on someone (even if it's only psychological pain) in order obtain information or a confession, as opposed to a lawful punishment for their actions, then you are falling under the definition of torture.

The reason why torture is bad is that it undermines the legal system. How can you find the truth of a situation and act on it if information or a confession is obtained under this kind of coercion?

Now you can say that these people aren't in the "legal system", but then you have the problem where they aren't being held because they did something wrong, but rather because they are enemy soldiers, in which case the Geneva Conventions kick in.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

@Liberty275:

So under your logic, which I don't completely agree with, Abdulmutallab has been sent to court because they can't legally do anything else with him. That is at least internally consistent, but then we still have idiots like Kruthammer writing about how this is somehow "denialism" and makes the country unsafe. So my point still stands, how the heck does Chuck think he can let this BS column slip through when anyone who has been semi-conscious knows that Obama is doing exactly the same thing Bush would have done.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.”"

well if that is your measure the election of Barak Obama and the passing of ARA, and the passage of the Health Care Bill are all Torture.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOLLOLLOLLOL

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

@Asbestos:

Look at the UN treaty's definition of torture. It is about inflicting mental or physical suffering in order to obtain information or a confession. Even if the suffering is relatively mild, if the justification is to obtain a confession, then it's got to be considered torture.

And you are trying to slip in a BS redefinition of torture as "coerced interrogation" because you don't understand why torture is illegal. It is illegal because it doesn't work and it undermines the system of laws we have in this country.

It's very simple, if the only way to get the pain and suffering to stop is to give tell them what you think they want to hear, then there is no way the information can be considered true or reliable. If you can't get the truth out, then what you are doing is worse than useless in terms of both justice and in terms of actionable intelligence.

The fact that it also dehumanizes both the person being tortured and the people doing the torturing is important from a philosophical standpoint, but not the root justification for this.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"And then there is President Obama's Executive Order of January 22nd, 2009, banning waterboarding, but you knew about that one too, didn't you?"

That is the point: lack of leadership. '""""""""""""""""""""" "Of course, I could also direct you to the US Army manual, issued in September of 2006, which specifically prohibits waterboarding but you knew about that, didn't you?"

That is why is was done only when there was significant information necessary like KSM. And it was only done to 3-5 people. Additionally, it was done by the CIA, not the Army.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

"America has been a signatory to the Geneva Conventions since the beginning. I direct your attention to third Geneva Convention."

Only applies to Legal Uniformed Combatants, not to terrorists and murderers.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

"any act by which severe pain or suffering"

Your argument fails in the first 8 words. Waterboading does not cause severe pain or suffering. It might be scary, but scary isnt severe pain or suffering..

I'm not arguing the viability of waterboarding or the validity of any information gained. I doubt contains much truth. OTOH, I doubt anything the detainees at gitmo say is true.

Soldiers wear uniforms, including rank insignia. These guys weren't dressed so, therefore they are not soldiers and not protected by the geneva convention.

Moral: if you want to fight a war, wear a uniform.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

@Asbestos:

This is not "my definition" this is the legal definition of torture. And if you want to compare the workings of government in an open society as being equal to the kind of 3rd world fascist BS you see in a petty dictatorship then maybe you should go away from the interwebs and look for Bigfoot.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Look at the UN treaty's definition of torture."

Yes "Look at it"! IF you see in Article 1, Section 1 and 2 "Legal instances of infliction of pain and suffering are permitted.

And while you are at it where are you on the U. N. issues of all there rest of the countries that did and continue to do actual "torture" and there is nothing brought to the forefront. Take Iran and DarFur for instance. Look at all the torture and suffering going on there, and the UN and drips like you guys take potshots at the US of A.

You are clearly with your post proving you hate America, and American Citizens.

If that is what you believe then so be it,

but at least be honest with yourself, you hate America.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

@Liberty275:

1) If all they did the entire time one of them was in custody was waterboard them once, then I think you may have a point. But they waterboarded them dozens if not a hundred times in one exceptional case, in addition to shackling them up, sticking them in a freezing room, depriving them of sleep for days at a time, etc. The point is that this is torture by a thousand little pin pricks in order to try and sidestep our legal requirements.

This is why the purpose of their actions (which is to obtain information or a confession) is the driving part of the definition.

2) I'm not going to argue about whether they are soldiers or not (some may fall under that definition, but most won't), but my driving point here is that we either have to treat them as law breakers, or treat them as soldiers. We can't put them in a legal blackhole for no reason, especially if we're going to torture them in the process.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"This is not “my definition” this is the legal definition of torture."

NO it is your"opinion". It is my "opinion" that waterboarding" is coerced interrogations.

Which by the way we only did on 3-5 people at most.

You guys act like the United States is an out of control monster that tortures everybody, whidh is ehy...

you show in your posts that you hate America and American Citizens.

SImple as that.

"""""""""""""""""""""""" "And if you want to compare the workings of government in an open society as being equal to the kind of 3rd world fascist BS you see in a petty dictatorship then maybe you should go away from the interwebs and look for Bigfoot."

Thank you because that is exactly the "moral equivalence" that the United Nations exercises, and you are following as well.

What an American Hatter you are.

You are out i the open now dude.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

@Asbestos:

Yes “Look at it”! IF you see in Article 1, Section 1 and 2 “Legal instances of infliction of pain and suffering are permitted.

The point is that these actions aren't legal for the U.S. government to do, especially on U.S. soil, otherwise they wouldn't have shipped them to Guantanamo or to other places outside the U.S. to do it. Moreover, even if corporal punishment were to be made legal again, it would still involve due process first, which none of these guys in Gitmo have gotten yet.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Moreover, even if corporal punishment were to be made legal again, it would still involve due process first, which none of these guys in Gitmo have gotten yet."

They are not citizens and they are not lawful uniformed combatants. They do not get Constitutional or Geneva protections.

The reason this falls through the legal cracks is because this kind of terrorism did not exist, and the old definitions are just that, old.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

"but then we still have idiots like Kruthammer writing about how this"

I don't read or listen to "chuck", so I can't comment on what he said. As far as obama doing the same thing bush did, neither had a choice. I don't think you've heard me ragging on obama regarding anything but closing gitmo and taking too long to give his generals what they need. Outside of those two mistakes, I don't think he's done too bad a job. I'm not dissapointed that he has forbidden waterboarding. It isn't like I'm a fan of it, but calling it illegal during the time it was done is incorrect and little more than a means to attempt undermining bush. Most people that make noise about it care zero percent about the waterboarding itself and 100 percent about scoring political points.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

How does wanting people that work for the U.S. government to do the right thing and obey U.S. law equal "hating America". Please explain this to me.

And there is no circular logic here. There are two legal options, treat them as criminals, or treat them as enemy soldiers. Neither of those options include torture. The fact is that Kruthammer is trying to create this false "third option" in order to make torture legal in those cases, and it's a completely worthless argument.

And again, if these guys didn't get due process how can you say they "deserve" anything. More to the point, how do you get off saying he needs to be impaled and die slowly. I mean the Nazi war criminals were worse than these guys and we all we did has hang them and move on.

This guy isn't worth setting aside our system of law and justice. None of the terrorists are worth that. Unless you're Charles Kruthammer, apparently.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

BTW, "corporal punishment" is not the term you want to use. IT is about "A punishment for some violation of conduct which involves the infliction of pain on, or harm to the body"

And is not banned, because many have death penalties. So again you are using words that are too big for your own comprehension.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

@Liberty275:

Well I guess I'm not "most people" as the only thing I care about is us going back to how things were before Dick Cheney, as the "good" guys, and then finding a way to get back on our feet at home and abroad.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

This is Opinion; "There are two legal options, treat them as criminals, or treat them as enemy soldiers. Neither of those options include torture. The fact is that Kruthammer is trying to create this false “third option” in order to make torture legal in those cases, and it's a completely worthless argument."

Obviously these people are in fact a "third definition" because they are not simple criminals and they are not soldiers, so by default there is a "third classification", even if you do not want to accept it. You take the first chance you fet and brand all American Soldiers, and all leaders in a policy you do not like to be "torturers", and you have the opinion that is correct. IF you can't accept that, then again that is your mental shortcoming not mine. Again, Krauthhamer did not make this third option, ...... ther terrorists did. Why are you blaming CHarles? It is your political bias, pure and simple. You are a "Blue Teamer" and that is all you need to know.

Or "MyName is setting the rules aside because he hates Bush, and Americans.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

Capital punishment = the Death Penalty Corporal punishment = beating someone (or possibly worse) as a punishment for breaking the law.

Both of these things used to exist in America, one of them (Capital punishment) still does, though the focus has been on killing the guilty person quickly and painlessly rather than adding additional pain or suffering.

My point is that torture != corporal punishment because the reason for torturing, which is to obtain information or a confession is different from that of corporal punishment, which is to punish someone who has gone through the justice system and been found guilty.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

It is not obvious that these people are in the "third definition". For that matter, why don't you show me which law or treaty creates this "third definition" because I haven't found it. The only reason it was created was as a legal fiction to cover the butts of the people in the previous administration who were trying to do something illegal. There was no law passed by Congress or anyone else saying that we could do this to people.

And again, show us how these guys are worse than the Nazis war criminals who still had to go through courts (even if they're 90), and who we didn't bother to create a new fictional definition for so we could torture them, but merely hung and moved on.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Capital punishment = the Death Penalty Corporal punishment = beating someone (or possibly worse) as a punishment for breaking the law."

You look up the definition in the legal books and it includes the death penalty, as well as flogging. I know facts and definitions are uncomfortable for you, that is why you are having such a problem with this.

I know what you point was, but you framed it in an intellectually dishonest was stating that "Corporal Punishment" was banned, which it was not, as the death penalty is a Capital and Corporal Penalty, just as the flogging was a Capital Punishment as well.

MY POINT is that you do not know what you are talking about and your underlying emotions and drive is that you do not like America and American Citizens because you choose the comfort of the terrorist enemies over the safety and lives of your fellow citizens.

There is no middle ground there son, none whatsoever.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

"If all they did the entire time one of them was in custody was waterboard them once, then I think you may have a point. But they waterboarded them dozens if not a hundred times in one exceptional case"

After about 2 times you'd think the person being waterboarded would think to himself "damn, this is gonna suck, but I know they aren't gonna really hurt me". OTOH, if they fall for the trick 100 times, they might be dumb enough to talk.

"We can't put them in a legal blackhole" Why not? What law say's the military can't hold enemy combatants until the cessation of hostilities?

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"It is not obvious that these people are in the “third definition”."

Only apparently for you and you alone, and as I stated if you even read my posts, that the law doesn't cover this type of entity, and they are not "soldiers" and are not simple "criminals" as Charles stated. Just because you argued yourself into a corner doesn't mean the rest of us are nuts. You re the one in the corner having trouble understanding things.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "And again, show us how these guys are worse than the Nazis war criminals who still had to go through courts.."

The Nazi Sub that showed up on American shores in WWII. No Trial, and no due process, and yes torture, and then they were hung. They were not wearing uniforms and were not "common Criminals" i.e. illegal combatants. Just like how the terrorists operate, and that is where you are getting your panties in a bunch. These guys are not acting like the NAZIs because the NAZIs were "wearing the same uniform", and acting on behalf of a state. The Geneva Convention and the Constitution are for those that are at least trying to obey the laws of war and conflict. The Jihadists attack without uniform civilian targets.

You picked the wrong topic today son.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

It is not obvious that these people are in the “third definition”.

It would be pretty obvious if you watched a few videos of them. Try youtube. Look at the daniel pearl beheading video and see if you can find rank insignia on the guys holding him down or on the guy cutting his head off.

"For that matter, why don't you show me which law or treaty creates this “third definition”

There is no third definition. They simply don't fit the first two so the have ZERO protections other than those we granted based on our utter basic morality.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

Thank You Liberty.

You make a much better point than I did.

Liberty275 5 years, 4 months ago

Sound like gitmo?


Types of torture used by the Germans throughout their occupation of Western Europe, Poland and Russia are summed up by the Supreme Allied Headquarters’ Psychological Warfare section in a thirteen-volume report of the German atrocities in France:

There is a shocking catalogue of German torture methods: putting people’s hands in boiling water until the skin and fingernails came off like gloves; stamping on a man’s foot for ten minutes with a special steel boot and repeating the process for two weeks; pressing a hot poker into the hands; hanging persons by their hands behind their backs until their shoulders were out of joint, then gashing the soles of their feet and making the victims walk on salt; pulling teeth and cutting and twisting off the ears; running electric current through the victims’ bodies and other fiendish devices too horrible to describe. These tortures and other brutalities, the list of which is too long to include, were used by the German occupation forces …{rn 6}

Many commandants of concentration camps actually singled out children for particular cruelty. The commandant of the Janowski camp in Lvov, Obersturmfuehrer Wilhaus especially enjoyed this form of sport. He was in the habit of standing on the balcony of the camp office and taking pot-shots at the prisoners working below to amuse his wife and nine-year-old daughter. Sometimes Wilhaus would order someone to throw three- or four-year-old children into the air while he shot at them. His daughter would clap her hands and cry: “Do it again, Papa, do it again.” And he would go on shooting.{rn 8}

http://www.historiography-project.com/weblog/1946/01/nazi-torture-and-medical-exper.html

bblbfolks 5 years, 4 months ago

Oh My Gawd!!! You liberal weenies make me sick! This scum bag left his rights on the floor of that plane when he tried to set off an explosion. If not for some quick thinking passengers he might have succeeded in blowing up that plane. Terrorists have NO rights under our constituion...they are niether citizens, propper students, immigrants, nor legal tourists. You just don't get it do you? They will use our own system to cause us harm! It is WAY past time to start playing it by the rules they use. Lop off the heads of terrorists in Times Square!

MarineVet 5 years, 4 months ago

bblbfolks I second that, they want to protect the animals that would come to our country and murder our families and children. Pathetic to say the least.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Hey Porch.....and you said he was someone in a previous life too....LOL! Seem to be doing that a lot lately. Mod. get back with you on your charges against me?

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

I apologize for making a joke about Porch. That post had to be deleted....poor taste on my part.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

Porchie,

"Your support of torture by Americans is analogous to support of torture by the Nazis during World War II."

I do not support torture, that is you saying that. I support coerced interrogations and if the source is necessary to crack to say stopping a nuke in DFW, OKC or KC or some other mid western center, and with the usual and customary consent order through a judge in the DOJ, then approved use of waterboarding under the very controlled conditions we used it in the last few years, then OK.

But you are seeming to say that everything the United States does in interrogation is torture, and that is being very Anti American.

I ask again,why oh why do you hate America and American Citizens so much???

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "Furthermore, can you tell us if it is logical for the rest of the world to approve of and to hold us in high regard for doing torture? To violate standards of behavior agreed to by 194 nations of the world, including ourselves?"

Porchie, the news to you is this:

The United States is the only country that is held to "any standard" with the United Natins of the other "194 countries".

Did you notice that Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and the Ayatollah's Iran are signatories on that very document? So are many of the same countries in Africa, Middle East. Hell, in Saudi Arabia they cut off peoples hands for stealing, they are signatories as well.

The point that you liberals miss is that the world complains a lot about the United States conduct at our worst, while excusing the worst the the best behaviors of those little dictatorships and signatories. And everybody that ignores human rights as a practice, weeing on the United States for small lapses such as Abu Garib and waterboarding 2-5 monsters that do not have the right to due process or to decent behavior.

Just ask Danny Pearl's wife.

You people simply as I stated hate America, and you learn all that crap in the Universities. They are still on the 60s hangovers. The sixties called and they want their dogma back.

Judging the United States through the perspective of the United Nations is a bit much and very much the definitions of America Hating as it gets.

anon1958 5 years, 4 months ago

Among the many ridiculous actions that people have tried to justify in this forum, arbitrary suspension of the constitution is the most cowardly and anti-American. SourKrauthammer and his followers here have repeatedly made that spineless retreat from American principles that were won and preserved by the blood of Americans.

Trying to redefine the practice of water boarding as something less than torture is one of the most extreme examples of trying to rationalize a criminal act I have ever read.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 4 months ago

Taxpayers in Lawrence, Kansas will pay $183.6 million for total Iraq and Afghanistan war spending since 2001. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

58,712 Lawrence People with Health Care for One Year

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Beobacther:

"Tom, are you having the audacity to claim you have a delicate soul? Best laugh of new year"

Nice....real nice....Anything about Obama? Terrorist? Enemy combatants? Anything?

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Trying to redefine the practice of water boarding as something less than torture is one of the most extreme examples of trying to rationalize a criminal act I have ever read."

Trying to rationalize that the very few times the United States has employed waterboarding as torture is the most extreme example of sticking ones head in that sand that I have ever seen.

Hell You Anon as a Marine with brothers on the line should understand that one. There is not "widespread" torture nor is everything our military does with these terrorists torture. But that is the way the argument is presented.

In my opinion painting the U.S. military as a bunch of torturers is the most anti American statment I have ever seen.

Addition to that, the defense of the country is the most important part of the Constitution. And non citizens terrorists do not deserve any protections whatsoever.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"SourKrauthammer and his followers here have repeatedly made that spineless retreat from American principles that were won and preserved by the blood of Americans."

It is you and your terrorists supporting ilk that are in "retreat" from American Principals that are "won by the blood of Americans".

Don't play the "I'm in the service" rationale for me either to support your lack of spine. My bet would be that the majority of the armed services would fully support dunking somebody's head in the water if it would protect their "brother's in arms". And I believe they would do it in a NY minute.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

As I recall...it was the CIA that waterboarded prisoners. Did I miss something?

In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[14][15] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandal. Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[16][17] According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information about a potential 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles.[18]

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

I should have placed those words in quotation marks. They are not my words, I cut and pasted from the source.

Like this: " Waterboarding was characterized in 2005 by former CIA director Porter J. Goss as a "professional interrogation technique".[11]"

From same source:

When it was happening, the director had approved the technique. Later it was found to be torture many still argue it is not.

anon1958 5 years, 4 months ago

Asbestos remarked. "In my opinion painting the U.S. military as a bunch of torturers is the most anti American statment I have ever seen."

This is a gross mischaracterization of anything I have ever said. I have great empathy and respect for the men and women of the armed forces.

Water boarding is torture, terrible crimes have been commited by soldiers in every war on all sides, this fact does not diminish the honorable service of fellow soldiers. One time or one million times, waterboarding is torture and the frequency of its application is immaterial to its definition. No soldier should ever have been in the position to participate or even be present when a prisoner is tortured. When that happens it is a failure somewhere in the chain of command.

The failure at Abu Gharib started rather high in the chain of command and eventually resulted in the awful behavior of enlisted men and women. Those men and women were and are responsible for their behavior but the failures of their officers created a situation that they were not properly trained for and should never been exposed to.

The following statement suggests that you think I have been in the armed services.

"Hell You Anon as a Marine with brothers on the line should understand that one. "

I have not served in the armed services even though many of my students and friends have been or are currently active duty and deployed.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Sorry but waterboarding is torture, has always been considered torture and always will be considered torture. "

Why don't you say it again only louder, then maybe it will change my mind. NO, NO good, did not do the trick.

Son is does not matter how many times you say it or "blame Bush" it simply is not true. It is "Coerced interrogation". IT may scare the heck out of them but it does not damage them. And if you are in that crapstorm, then you know you are someplace and have done something you should have never thought about doing.

"""""""""""""""""" "No one, no one is saying that what we did was not torture."

Yeah, me and lots of people are saying it is not torture. And a heckuva lot more will be saying that the next time we fill caskets with American Civilians from another terrorist attack that could have been prevented by pouring water in some terrorists nose with the full knowledge and oversight of the DOJ.

Oh, and BTW, since the DOJ "cleared" in those cases then it was "legal".

So you just blew your whole argument. It matters not what if you think it was rigged or corrupt, because that is your ""opinion"", and I am pretty sure you are not a DOJ level constitutional attorney specializing in national security issues. """""""""""""""""""" "He also conducted the torture on foreign soil to avoid our own laws."

So did President Clinton and almost all the other Presidents this century with your loose definition of "torture", but I back 'em up[ by knowing we do "coerced interrogation" which has oversight. The program is called "rendition" and President Obama just resurrected the practice so he can "close Gitmo". A political trade off for security, but none the less a trade off to this still happening even by your "messiah".

"""""""""""""""""""" "It was a patently disingenuous response by the Bush Administration which is one of a number of patently disingenuous story lines that fly with the more “patriotic” of you dunderheads."

Oh good the "dunderheads gambit". That is just a sep up from the "neiner-neiner" defense in debate.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Obama banned waterboarding in 2009. So it must have been legal until then correct?

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

I stated earlier I do not support torture and I do not. I asked the question....if Obama banned waterboarding in 2009 that means it must have been legal before that.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Apparently it's so bad that Obama has to hide it. That must be some pretty bad stuff."

Apparently it may have been more valuable and perfectly justified and that's the reason that it is being hidden. Heck most journalists have been "waterboarded" for the new story or for charity. What is to be hidden. We don't use electric drills on people or lop off body parts. So if waterboarding is all Obama has, why not release it????

The bad stuff is that it worked and it was effective and it was humane. These guys are still alive, and yes those stories will come out anyway in the KSM court case in New York.

Again you are seeing things thorough "blue tinted shades" and you show yourself for the koolaid drinker you are.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Tell me, why are you two arguing on the wrong side of an issue with such overwhelming evidence against you? If the United States Government thought that waterboarding was “coerced interrogation”, it would still be legal and John Yoo would still have his job at Justice."

Wait til the DEMS are thrown out in 2010 and 2012, and waterboarding and a robust economic, energy, and anti terrorism policy is re-enacted, instead of the soaring rhetoric of "green economies" and a theory that "everybody loves us".

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Two seperate things. Obama banned it in 2009 so prior to that it was legal in the US. True the Geneva Convention makes torture illegal in 1949. The argument was and has been was waterboarding torture? So we see legal experts saying it was while others saying it was not. Porter Goss declares it enhanced interogation techniques or something similar. There was also much arguement over the Geneva Convention does it apply to non uniformed combatants a part of a nations military.

Either way, Americans were beheaded, dragged in streets, put on fire, displayed on a bridge...I'm pretty sure that is illegal. We as Americans have always been concerned about being on the higher ground, and allowing others to assume the lower ground. Somehow that is OK with us. Bush did not care what other countries thought. He was going to get to the bottom of who knew what when it came to the security of this country and its people. Some fault him for that.

Good to see Obama has brought back the war against terror, that overseas contingency thing was not working out very well.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"The American people voted out the Bush Administration, which was doing torture. The Republicans have lost in the last two elections cycles, by ever increasing margins."

Yes and those margins are now evaporating from the Democrats. Just look at any congressional race and incumbent Democrats are in trouble starting with the majority leader Harry Reid, and the Economic committee chair Chris Dodd.

""""""""""""""""""""" "Now you're saying that an administration (which was doing torture already, which drove the economy into the ground one year before Obama was elected) is going be the policies that Americans are going to return to?"

You put the argument into the "Red Team/Blue Team" dynamic again and you lose that one. The American Electorate do not like all the baillouts, the stimulus and the Health Care bills and all the additional taxes that is making the economy worse ans will push us into a deeper double dip recession by the middle of 2010.

President Obama is going to join company with Jimmy Carter as the worst financial and foreign policy presidents in recent history.

We simply are a bankrupt nation, and that is the Fault of the Former Administration under GOP control and the Current Administration under DNC Control. The financial issues we are facing are decades in the making by politicians trying to hand all all these goodies to get people to vote for them, but never backed it up with taxes and just kicked the can down the road to states.

What you know about politics and world affairs is truly a great amount of nothing.

This economy is going to tank and the Gooberment has been lying about the money supply, the debt, and the BLS unemployment statistics.

You can't go on blaming Bush for everything. The first part about leadership is taking responsibility!

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch....acutally I think all of us would rather a Bush economy than an Obama one right about now. About 5% plus of the entire nations population was working then that aren't now. Home foreclosures??? Forget about it. The economy hit the skids when the democrats took over congress and the budget in 2008. However, anyone of reasonable intellegence says the economy collapse is a result of the inflated housing starting with Freddie and Fanny Mae then spreading like wild fire. Through other sectors of the economy.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

"Second, take a history class or two. You make ghastly mistakes on the simplest points of historical fact"

OK there historical expert, where are the sources and which "historical inconsistencies" are you jawing about. What you made is provocative broad statement which i your usual MO.

Then attack spelling and other such no issue errors. It all renders to a personal attack with you. """""""""""""""""""""" "“Take responsibility” and learn that Bush had driven this economy into the ground before the Democratic convention in 2008."

The economic effects we will be feeling very painfully are decades in the making. To lay this all the the Previous Administrations feet is simply disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. The "Keynesian" economic policies of the past 30 years is what is bringing this whole thing down.

To be so obtuse to blame a set political party in a "red Team/Blue Team" frame is missing the point entirely. No matter how bad your Bush Derangement Syndrome is, he is no longer in office, and Obama is. The Dems hold the majority for the last part of the last administration as well.

So there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the isle.

After the politics has not changed, just the rhetoric has changed.

But you still have not answered the question:

Why do you hate Americans and American?

Why do you feel it necessary to put it in the worst light possible, and especially aid and comfort our enemies?????

""""""""""""""""" "It's those policies that you are claiming that the American public is longing to return to. "

NOPE! I do not want amnesty for illegal aliens, and do not want trials for terrorists. I want the U.S. Citizen to have their earning power back from Wall Street and Washington D.C., and I want the Federal Reserve to be reigned in if not completely obliterated along with Freddie and Fannie.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

And yet the Bush economy was so much better than the Obama one. And he did not spend nearly as much. He did not throw us this far in debit, and we have nothing to show for it. Oh a few cars in the salvage yard. So many more of us are homeless under Obama and without work. We grow weary of the Obamaites.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

The usual Democratic and Liberla process. You don't like the way the debate or polling is going, kill or trash the messenger.

Here is one on the Dems complaining about Rasmussen:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31047.html

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 4 months ago

I think it is obvious that our system is not what it should be. We have struggled to implement an effective Homeland Security system and so far, it appears to be about as effective as the Maginot line was in stopping the German Army.

Guys like Krauthammer are the problem in my view. He is not interested in solving anything at all. He is just interested in promoting his narrow political agenda which is related to his own personal insanity issues. Krauthammer should be writing horror stories because he has a talent for fiction writing.

If we, the American people, could get our congress to actually learn how to do their jobs, we might be able to solve of a few of our problems. I think we need to just get rid of most of them and start over.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

And how many trillions has Obama added since he took office? Not bad for less than a year.

You love GDP and that stuff. Can the unemployeed spend the GDP? Will it put food on the table. Those who lost their homes can the dow jones....source for much of our problems....get them their homes back?

Please enough of your childish drivel....come back to the planet. Go back to 2007 the year before the democrats took over the congressional budget. How do you like those stats. LOL!

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

“During the administration of President George W. Bush, the total debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008, rising from 54% of GDP to 75% of GDP”

Yes but Obama has tripled that rate in just 8 months.

December Debt limit for 2008 was $10,7 as you say, however now it is $12.6 in Obama's first year and they still have to raise the debt limit again to cover the last 6 months, it has tripled the rate of spending and that is before Health Care Reform and before the Crap and Trade. Oh, yeah you are going to blame Bush for Obama's legislation (Actually it is Reid and Pelosi).

Here is the debt clock:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You make "stupid and uninformed" statments.

Don't bring up economic stats, I will bury you with them son.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Nope can't argue with facts and since the left took over the budget coupled with Fanny and Freddie.....well a lot of people got hurt. That hurt will continue for many years now and passed to the next generations.....yet our nation suffers.

How is that for facts. I do not have fantasies of death to fellow bloggers. I do think you will be having lunch with me one day.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

It was a poor joke I enjoined with another person and I apologized in that vain. I do not think as you say I do. I think Glenn Beck is way over the top. Rush Limbaugh bores me. Some media is left some is right. You think Fox News is right. Yet Sheppard Smith is left, Greta is left, Jarrad is left, Geraldo is left, Bill Hemmer is left. Show me another network that has that kind of mix in their main anchors.The movie indurstry is mostly left. We on the right can spell, its just that this site does not have spell check. The biggest problem with the left is they are so arrogant they don't admit mistakes or apologize for them. They just run.

Now about lunch. Do you know the average person does not talk about politics? And it is all but forbidden to speak in the work place. We have to come here to do it. Surely you know other subjects to talk about.....surely you do?

anon1958 5 years, 4 months ago

Never before has so much logic failed by so few people.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 4 months ago

I have always been against the idea of "declaring war" on terrorism. Yet, we like to do this. For example, we declared war on poverty.

One of the major goals of terrorists is to get themselves put on a stage so they can rant their message to the world because they believe their message will change the world. They suffer from the same kind of insanity that cult leaders exhibit. We made Osama Bin Laden the superstar of terrorism. He and his sickos could not have been happier with the way they manipulated the Bush administration.

What better recruiting tools can you have then to show Dick Cheney supporting torture and the mistreatment of the people terrorists advertise as heroes.

Krauthammer represents the cancer that has eaten up our political system and slowed the political process down to the level of delinquents fighting over turf. Not something you can be proud of.

Then you take this bunch into a battle for the future economic health of this nation against countries like China and I think we are looking very pathetic.

We cannot continue with the kind of political polarization we see in congress.

If all Krauthammer wants to do is complain about Obama, I think he has to go because his views are way over the top. He is an extremist.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 4 months ago

Narcissism:

Mental disorder characterized by extreme self-absorption, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, and a need for attention and admiration from others. First identified by Havelock Ellis in 1898, the disorder is named for the mythological Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection. In addition to an inflated self-image and addiction to fantasy, narcissism is characterized by an unusual coolness and composure, which is shaken only when the narcissistic confidence is threatened, and by the tendency to take others for granted or to exploit them. According to Sigmund Freud, narcissism is a normal stage in children's development, but it is considered a disorder when it occurs after puberty.

I think my sales manager must be a narcissist.

Here's some poop on Krauthammer.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 4 months ago

When you point a finger at someone, you always have 3 fingers pointing back.

I also have a friend who was in one of these "meetings". No one ever said Krauthammer wasn't a smart guy. It is the smart guys that always get us in trouble because when the smart guys are wrong, they usually cause the most damage.

We need to start dissecting Krauthammer's motives and positions on foreign policy if we are going to have to listen to him vent all the time. I think we would be very surprised by his view of the world and his anger at those who disagree with him.

Our system of government is supposed to be the best in the history of the world. Yet, we find people in our government abusing their positions. Government should be transparent as possible and we should expect the people in our political parties to work together to make our government function smoothly. In today's political climate, the Republicans have not demonstrated the ability to do that. In like manner, the Democrats also have disappointed us.

Americans want the health care situation fixed. They want responsible energy policy. They want our borders to be secure. We want to develop solar, wind and any other alternative energy and we want to cut off the umbilical cord to foreign oil since it has a monopoly over us.

We want to stop doing favors for the rich and powerful and start doing more for the average American. We want to end monopolies and promote small business and entrepreneurship. We believe we have been ripped off by Wall Street and we don't want it to happen again.

Krauthammer is a lot of the things he accuses Obama of being. He makes charge after charge against Obama but not much holds water at this point. I could accuse a teacher of child abuse and it might ruin his career. The kinds of things he is saying are just mud being thrown against the wall, hoping something will stick.

If I was to listen to Krauthammer's theory of taking over the world, I guess I would have to go to Harvard, get a law degree, volunteer for social work in inner city Chicago, work there for 20 years and then run for political office.

All of you young Hitler's out there, now you know how to take over the world. Krauthammer just told us how it is done.

MyName 5 years, 4 months ago

Not to resurrect an issue that we are probably done talking about but this pretty much sums up the philosophical reasons that the pro-torture people seem to have set aside in their dash for a legal fig leaf:

"Force and violence can be defended morally in war as the least worst option in a world where evil exists, and where the enemy is at large and fully capable of killing you. But when you have captured the enemy, when he is utterly under your control, tied naked to chair by shackles in a cell, the morality of the use of force shifts dramatically. When you unleash violence against him when he cannot defend himself, you have crossed a core moral line." http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/radical-pacifists.html

As for all of those people who are trying to claim that "these people don't [deserve to] have rights", the bottom line is that the right to not be imprisoned indefinitely for no reason (habeas corpus) and the right to due process under the law are our rights. If we set aside our rights because of these guys then they have gained something and we have lost something. This is something you all just don't get and I can't understand why.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 4 months ago

Krauthammer was wrong on Iraq, but he is only a journalist. He does not have to pay for anything when he is wrong, evidently. He was wrong about weapons of mass destruction and he was wrong about our ability to handle the costs of trying to create a democratic model in the midst of the Arab world. He promoted the risks, but took none of the blame. That is the wimpy fact about journalists. They can blab all they want and get paid and no one calls them to task when they blow it.

If we were to follow Krauthammer's ideas, we would bankrupt our country in a short time (and we are on the way to doing that) and we would polarize the world into two warring camps.

Krauthammer's approach does not work. His world is a world in constant conflict much like the Marxist dialectic. I guess his version is the Krauthammer dialectic. Only through conflict can we achieve the ideal.

I guess some would call that genius. I call it insanity.

Kash_Encarri 5 years, 4 months ago

Too many comments to read through all the bs so I hope I'm not repeating.

The headline is three words too long.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch...I agree with most of your comments, but who cares what I think. I am not sure what the economy will do, I don't know much about it. Other than right now it is bad, really bad.

The democrats are in trouble.

And we republicans have no one capable of unseating Obama. The names you mentioned are front runners and are not viable. I do not think second attempt folks do well. There have been exceptions but Gore and Kerry were not reasonable nor or the republican wash outs. So unless there is someone out there like Obama for us...we are toast.

Now back to hostilities.

leedavid 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch.....accepted. And may you accept my sincere apologies for saying some of the things I say to you. I allow myself to get so worked up sometimes. I shouldn't but I do. Other times I am trying to get a chuckle. I think you have a good since of humor, but I don't know how people take my quips. I should be more careful.

You and I will never agree on some things politically. Your on the left, I am on the right. We are presently in a politically charged enviornment so it makes it more fun. I should be able to present my thoughts without getting angry.

So I apologize. If there is anyone else I have ticked off, get over it. No, seriously I apologize to you too. LOL!

Now back to hostilities. I hope Obama gets it right on national security because it looks like attacks are going to be on the rise. I think Homeland Security should be headed up by a retired military Special Operations Officer or a former high up in the CIA. Not a former governor. Ms. Napolitano is clearly over her head on this one.

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

TS,

Actually the left is disappointed in Obama for not going as far left as they'd like, not for being a radical.

And the right is upset because he's not far right either.

Sounds like he's trying to go for the middle - whether that has any chance of success, I can't say.

And I completely agree that if we continue in the current vein of bitter partisan politics (on both sides) we'll have a much harder time finding good solutions to our common problems.

Satirical 5 years, 4 months ago

Kraut's Best Point: "The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaida training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation."

It was wrong for Bush to capture and detain terrorists indefinitely to try to get information to win the war on terror, but it is okay for Obama to not try to capture, but instead to assassinate terrorists? So, keep a person alive and get information which helps save other lives is bad, but to kill an individual without a judge or jury is good? Makes total sense...if you are a liberal.

LoveThsLife 5 years, 4 months ago

With all the intelligence briefings Obama gets I am pretty sure he is NOT in denial about a terrorist threat.

You have to remember as well that those lapses in security were done in other countries as well...it wasn't necessarily his administration's fault they happened.

I think the language they use when talking to the press is intentionally low key. In their view they are doing their best to keep people calm..whether it is effective is still to be decided.

I don't necessarily agree with everything he or his administration has decided..however...they are trying to get us out of Iraq (thank goodness)...which is more than John McCain would have done.

And Porch Person: I actually disagree with you the the Republican Party has no one. True they have a lot of crazies that have taken over their party. However, I have been impressed with what I have read about Mitt Romney. I didn't agree with his position on Iraq, but he has a lot of strong points. Then again he is often overlooked...probably because the Republicans are way too fascinated with fluff like Sarah Palin.

LoveThsLife 5 years, 4 months ago

You are right about him saying anything..that is something that annoyed me about 2008. But then again, I think to an extent they all do it...McCain certainly did. I see your point, in reality he is a more moderate candidate (according to his record) but in order to get the nomination he had to act ultra conservative. It's sad - the Republicans have had some really good people who have identified with the party but who have been alienated because of their more moderate views.

I don't think his race against McCain was a result of conservative things he said..I mean it was the Republican primaries. Plus "Maverick" McCain had to do the same thing to get the nomination. I think McCain won the nomination because he was the familiar candidate, a war hero and because Romney is Mormon...which I think for the parties "religious right" that is a hard pill to swallow...even harder to swallow than a candidate that once said he wanted nothing to do with them. However, I think they regretted their decision when they watched Obama bull doze McCain during the debates.

I think Romney bailed because he knew he wasn't going to get the nomination and it was going to personally cost him more money to keep running...he did finance a lot of his campaign himself. Plus I am sure it was strategic..I think being graceful about bowing out probably made him a more likely a contender in 2012. And I am sure you are right..I am sure he is looking to run again in 2012.

Even though some things he said might hurt him, they may not have the a major impact depending on where we are at in 2012. It was the independents that really voted Obama in and gave the Dems control of the house...and they could take that away if they don't feel things have changed/improved. A candidate like Romney may appeal to them..I think it will be interesting to see what happens next election.

jumpin_catfish 5 years, 4 months ago

They got the terrorist thing under control , oh sure and soon they will take over health care. How can they fail after all the government is well known for running a tight ship and not wasting money or screwin up. I'm not worried at all!!!!!!!

hwarangdo 5 years, 4 months ago

Does the blog section have a "mute" button?

LoveThsLife 5 years, 4 months ago

Porch Person-

According to Rasmussen Obama has a 29% approval rating right now. If you look at the Gallup polls you will see his approval rating is a little higher but has been steadily declining sine Feb 2009, while his disapproval rating has been steadily increasing...I wouldn't say his next campaign is "in the bag". In those polls the actual number isn't as important as the trend....and the trend is his approval is going down not up. And as much as Europe may love Obama..they aren't exactly voting in 2012. And I am not sure if your average American really cares what they think anyway.

All I am saying is I wouldn't discount Romney..the man was right about GM if anyone in Washington would have listened to him it would of saved taxpayers a crap load of money...when he left the Governorship of Mass. the state had a surplus. He has shown he is able to be pretty bipartisan (mass health care reform). And he has probably created more actual jobs for people in his lifetime than most politicians. He has a strong understanding of business as well as well as a firm understanding of the economy. And from a personal point view I like the fact that he stresses states rights..something that Obama and even Bush didn't do. If he ran off of that record alone he would have a pretty strong case. All I am saying is bringing up a few quotes from the internet isn't necessarily going to have a huge impact on the independent vote. Especially if their concern is how much being spent by the Obama administration, and their effectiveness with the economy. If those are still huge concerns in 2012..then it is viable that he may not get re-elected. Even Colin Powell..who voted for Obama warned him and the rest of the Democratic party about that...well more specifically about not becoming spend happy.

arizonajh 5 years, 4 months ago

Love this life- I'm calling BS Rasmussen has Obama at approve 49% disapprove 51% Gallop is approve 51% disapprove 44% CNN/opinion research is a 54% d 44% Quinnipac is a 46% d 43% All of those were conducted between 12/15 and 1/5 with Rasmussen released on 1/5/10. That's an avg 50 to 45.5.

Where the heck did you get 29%?

Bryan Moore 5 years, 4 months ago

BK- so what are you saying that you don't understand what you read or that you just misrepresent the facts on purpose? Those who "strongly" approve is just a sub-set of those who approve. So of those Rasmussen polled (which Rasmussen leans right just as CNN/OpinionResearch leans left) 49% approved and 29% strongly approved. By saying that "According to Rasmussen Obama has a 29% approval rating right now. " you erase 20% of his support. Mislead much?

TopJayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

JayhawkLawrence. What is insane is when you see events happen right before your eyes, and won't do anything about it because you would rather intellectualise, and spout nonsense that sounds good, but has nothing to do with reality. I read where another kool-aider wants to blame Bush for releasing some Gitmo detanees and he should be blamed. He did, and he should. Then to say Gitmo should be closed, that is insanity.

LoveThsLife 5 years, 4 months ago

@Porch Why does everything go back to guns and abortion with you? States rights has a lot more to do with that... For example California's clean air act..don't you remember the huge fight California had with the EPA under the Bush administration about that? Maybe not...but in essence it was a state's rights issue and a darn good one to. During the Obama administration they (California) got a waiver, and were able to impose stricter standards. However, it did bring up important issues over whether states should have more authority over managing their resources. In addition, What about education? That is a HUGE one..in reference to who should have more control whether it be the state or the federal government, there has been a HUGE tug of war with "No Child Left Behind"....but maybe you don't understand those things. And quiet frankly, they are GOOD arguments with valid points on either side. But you seem to have a difficult time exploring any point of view other than your own on an issue..so I don't expect much of a response from you.

And yes, of course most liberally minded people are going to take issue with anything that is conservative that comes out of ANYONE'S mouth, however, I am not talking about them..I am talking about independents who may be more focused on government spending and be willing to take a second a look. In addition, a lot has changed since since the 2008 primaries, you need to remember that. The primaries happened pre-Bear Stearns and Lehman Brother's no one expected what happened on wall street to happen when it did. During the primaries the Iraq war was still center stage. It wasn't until Sept. 2008 that things changed...if Bear Stearns would have went under before the primaries I don't think McCain would have been nominated..by his own admission he said he didn't have a strong understanding of economics. Words do matter, however, people also look at past performance..and all I am saying is that he has strong argument when it comes to creating jobs and understanding business. In addition, Obama made a ton of campaign promises there was no way he could make good one once he made office. And though I admire his integrity for putting health care reform on the table for debate...the bills that are being discussed are a disaster. I voted for him knowing there was no way he would make good on most of his promises, but I thought he was the best of my two options at the time. There are somethings I do like Obama...he listens to people who know more than him, he actually walks a hard line with Israel and Palestine and acknowledges their tumultuous history (which the other administration went in on a"clean slate" mentality..HUGE mistake). All I am saying is if you think he wins the next election by a landslide you better think again, because it's not likely and that's if he wins again.... But you are too focused on yourself and your own world view to possible understand another's.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.