Clinton's status came from name and the belief she was the strongest against the republicans. Democrats are spooked by the specter of the swiftboat without concidering the republicans are not that scary and the swiftboat was largely Kerry's fault for ignoring it.
HRC is not a loved figure. Women want a woman president and support her on gender basis. Plus many voters have this illusion that it's really a restoration of Bill Clinton.
However, at the JJ Dinner, what Obama did was not so much the speech, which we know he is an inspiring orator. It was that he addressed the problems of Clinton directly in front of her without being negative. People in Iowa, who already liked Obama, took him even more seriously and saw a man who was indeed presidential that night.
When Hillary attacked Obama, what she did was show that Obama can take on the feared Clinton machine and do it in a way that cuts her down but, not nasty. An artful but, very effective way of taking her on.
He proved he is capable of standing up to republicans, which was a worry some democrats had. Clinton hurt herself but, also helped Obama a great deal. Especially with him not even breaking a sweat cutting her down and even Bill a few times. It let the air out of the fear dems had of the Clintons and the inevitability of her.

Among Democrats nationwide, Clinton's fall wasn't matched by a rise for Obama, whose standing rose 2 points from early November.

What could be the reason behind the shrinking leads of the two frontrunners Giuliani & Clinton?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1249

.

Bsimon -- I hope you read this.

I'm glad you asked that question, and it didn't offend me in the least bit.

If you actually knew me, you would know that I am fairly mild-mannered, polite, and friendly.

I don't exactly see how I'm "acting" like a Mohammed, a warlord.

My "beliefs" are passionate. I passionately belive in JUSTICE. I have chosen, as my first career, what I believe to be the administering of justice.

But I'm not personally a warlord. I don't advocate violence against the innocent - especially moderate Muslims.

So, if "believing" something (and expressing it) is the same as "acting" a certain way (IE, leading men into battle to spread my religious law and hope to die in the name of Allah), then you might have a point.

I'm just trying to get a point of view across to a group of people I don't think hear it enough, if ever - Bin Laden would gladly kill ANY of us blogging on the fix, and only a few stand between him and you.

And I don't understand why, throughout the course of history, it has always been "a few" that stand between justice and injustice.

That's where I have a problem with you so-called "moderates". There is no such thing as "moderation" when it comes to justly protecting the lives of the innocent.

Anyway, thanks for your question, but I am actually not a pedofile warlord criminal who has psychotic visions and oppresses women.

I'm a pretty nice guy who leaves big tips in restaurants, lets people in my lane on the freeway, and loves America.

Sheridan, you probably won't get around to reading this so I'll be breif.

I don't recall typing "irregardless". Can you read?

You are right unborn means unborn. But you don't even have the balls to go far enough to say that unborn means NOT alive.

Innocent life > guilty life. Period.

You can point to extreme cases (rape & abortion) rather than discussing the real issue. 1 in 5 babies world wide are murdered prior to being born. I sincerely doubt 20% of pregnancies in the world are the result of rape. But then again, "men like you" think defending only the fringes of your argument is sufficient for the whole thing.

Iraq, Iran, Afg. - yes, I am. I am concerned for unborn life around the world, as I'm sure our Lord is as well.

Are you?

Or are you the only one who gets to ask rediculous questions?

First of all, Mike, IRREGARDLESS is not a word. It is a double negative. Kind of like you. The word is "regardles."
Secondly, I would like to address this -"Why are liberals more concerned with the rights of terrorists than the rights of the innocent unborn?"
Possibly because we are actually PRO LIFE. Terrorists may be what you name them and they may NOT be. But they are human beings and they are alive. Your creator made them as well as you. Unborn babies are exactly that - unborn.
If your wife/sister/daugter was raped and impregnated and had reoccuring nightmares about it, would you FORCE her to have the child?
Seems kind of like turture to me. I can assure you, women will have abortions whether they are legal or not. And when they are not, sometimes women DIE in the process. So, how is that "pro-life?"
I love it when men like you, Mike, are so concerned about the "innocent unborn." I only wish it were that simple. Are you concerned about the "innocent unborn" in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?

Mike, why, in combatting Islamic extremists, are we acting more like your characterization of Mohammed than like your characterization of Jesus?

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 10:10 AM
"

Now your getting it, simon. To defeat the terrorist, must we become terrorists? And who will stop the terrorists in the republican party (some moderate sell-out dem's lieberman feinstein kerry clinton Biden to and extent, though I think he'll come around.)

My point is, simon, who is going to do somethign about it? Do we hold them accountable by electing a repuclian? No, though paul definatly is getting a major seat at teh table of politics. So you turn to the democrats. Will the democrats hold the republcains accountable? some are willing to, some are not. Unfortunatly it is looking like the moderates are more like republcains than they are the new democratic party. So who will hold them accounable? I'll take my chances with the liberal wing. Hoping they don't sell us out when they get power, like after 06. Tiem will tell I guess.

But liek Sen. Obama says. "we have no good options". Only hard choices.

"P.S. Unless you live within a city of 500,000 plus residents, you're not allowed to talk about the threat of terrorism. Your nonsensical diatribes about terrorism put the overall security of those of us living within the five boroughs in jeopardy every time that we step onto the subway platform. So if you could please, stick to what you know best: Homogeneous suburbs, and school budgets.
Thanks guys!

Eugene Debs '08
"

Wow. Word is born. Thank you for that insightfull post. Really. On point Eugene. I live in reno. the district has never been republican since, at least 1984 (when it was districted). So I feel you believe me. Then to hear oreilly and hannity talk about free speech and how the left wants to take their rights. Unbelievable. This after dixie chicks lose their profession for their political point of view. Pat tillman loses his life at their hands , and other soldiers. Rosie off the air. Professors and judges being fired. Because the right is "offended". Them murdering tazing beating people offend me. Do I get to silence them? Time will tell.

Great post Eugene. You get to the heart of what the internet and blogs are for. Thanks again.

God BLess.

I reject the premise that it has to be one or the other. There is a natural tightening of the polls in the final month before voting begins, partially in the form of Giuliani and Clinton slipping. The fact that there is a historical precedent for this pattern of polling changes does not make it any better news for these two former front-runners.

Ok, I'm going to make a deliberately inciteful (not insightful) remark, to make a point.


late last night, USMC_Mike wrote:

"Let's face it. Mohamed was a warlord. He led almost 200 military campaigns.

Jesus Christ was not. He led 0 armies and wielded 0 swords."


Mike, why, in combatting Islamic extremists, are we acting more like your characterization of Mohammed than like your characterization of Jesus?

Throughout history war can be justified or reasoned by one word "Religion". Each and every one has been about believing someone or something other than our own beliefs including the love of money or greed as some would define it. This "Religion" has many faces, such as the one in Iraq, which I said from the beginning was for Oil/Money and still maintain to this day.

king of zouk,

I'm sure you can do better than Sean Hannity-like remarks. I find it so ridiculous that you're willing to defend the Republican Party. This is like Jonah Goldberg of the NY Post defending tax cuts for the rich. How obsequious do you have to be to defend the top 5% of income earners? If you're making over $250, 000 annually, I retract these remarks; however, I suspect that you're not that wealthy, so it is incomprehensible to me why you would defend such a small percentage of society. Bear in mind, the 5% you're defending do not care about you, at all. They care that you're an intolerant person with little or no tact. Therefore, they seize upon the opportunity to use voters like you to divide the electorate. I agree that Hillary Clinton and many Democrats are as corrupt, dishonest as their Republican counterparts. Notwithstanding, the greatest thing we have to fear of a Democratic Administration, is an increase in taxes. I'm not that afraid of that because I'm not a part of that top 5% of income earners. If you are, then I can understand your avarice. George W. Bush lied about weapons in Iraq. Thousands of men, women and children are now dead or severely wounded as a result of his Administration's ineptitude. That is not meant as judgment, but an unfortunate reality. We learned yesterday that President Bush and his ilk have knowingly mislead us on Iran's supposed weapons program. The Bush/Guiliani apologists such as yourself are as detached from reality as this President was disconnected from his own intelligence agencies. All sixteen of them. So needless to say, I'm not too worried about an increase in taxes on private-equity firms, hedge funds. Not from a moral standpoint, but from a pragmatic one. These folks represent a small portion of society, of which I am not a part. And I'm glad you have attacked Mike Huckabee because this clearly illustrates how disconnected you and much of your ilk are from the zeitgeist. Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul. Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and a growing many represent the disaffected ranks of your party. And instead of reconciling with this wing, you're castigating them. The immigration issue is ensuring a decrease in Hispanic support for your party next year. So who are you left with? Wealthy whites and obsequious ones like yourself and Jonah Goldberg. And what is your platform next year? "Republicans, a graceful return to the 1980's." Most Americans don't want to return to the 1980's. In 2000, the euro was worth $.76 to the dollar. Now it is worth $1.47. The pound is roughly $2 to our one. And more Americans are beginning to realize that their dollars cannot buy them as much of those nice foreign goods they like so much at the mall. The Republicans' Wilsonian rhetoric has created more tension in the Middle East, and raised oil to roughly $100/barrel. As a matter of fact, your delusional politicking has actually served to validate liberals & greens' clamoring for energy independence. If you don't think these issues matter to the other 95% of income earners, you're sadly mistaken. Your party looks like the Democrats in 1980. Tragically flawed, and utterly fragmented.

P.S. Unless you live within a city of 500,000 plus residents, you're not allowed to talk about the threat of terrorism. Your nonsensical diatribes about terrorism put the overall security of those of us living within the five boroughs in jeopardy every time that we step onto the subway platform. So if you could please, stick to what you know best: Homogeneous suburbs, and school budgets.
Thanks guys!

Eugene Debs '08

The history of Islam is a history of a violent struggle - a war to spread the religion by force. Cities where battles were won, Jews were killed, and people were 'united' by force under General Mohammed, are called "holy".

OK.

The history of Christianity may not be perfect, but its founder spread its message through peace and love. And so too did his 12 followers, who experienced horrendous deaths.

femalenick -- I like the spirit of what you said, although I disagree with the substance. You wrote a lot, so I took the time to read it.

The spirit is the respect for the power of the spoken word. I believe very deeply in the power of the spoken word. For instance, when people are constantly down about my Aggies, they tend to lose. Maybe it gets back to them somehow and affects them. I don't know. But you're right. We should be careful of what we say. Like saying we are losing the war or that Bush planned 9/11. The spoken word is more powerful than we think.

However, one part of your discussion I think is untrue:

"Every single one of the "great religions"... has black marks on its history. For anyone to suggest that Islam is the least tolerant is asinine and unbelievably ignorant."

1. I already conceded examples of this earlier

2. Those examples are rare, in comparison. Islamists have repeatedly attacked, or tried to attack, every western country.

3. There are no "fundamentalist Christian" nations that oppress women, freedoms, and seek to actively destroy other nations. But I can think of at least 5 Islamic nations that are/do.

4. Drop a cross in a bucket of urine and call it art. No one dies.

Call a teddy bear a wrong name.
Draw a picture of someone.

Someone might die.

Are there extremists? Yes. Do we all agree extremism is bad? Sure.

But there are countless more Islamic extremists. And they're infinately more violent and committed than any other kind.

5.) I have read it myself. I have read interpretations of it, just to be sure. The Koran -- the parts that call Muslims to arms. That glorify death for Allah. That justify killing us cows.

Let's face it. Mohamed was a warlord. He led almost 200 military campaigns.

Jesus Christ was not. He led 0 armies and wielded 0 swords.

Violence, aggression, and war, holds a central place in Islam. From the beginning. From its orgins. From its founding, and founder.

It is inherent. It will not go away. That is why I can say, 1 of the 12 world's religions is different from the rest.

USMC_Mike - one more point - I imagine that the USMC refers to the US Marine Corps.

I come from a military family and thus continue to have an inordinate number of people who are either active or retired in the US Armed Forces. Every single one would find your comments regarding Islam and torture grossly offensive.

I hope you were just being flippant and trying to incite discussion for I found it extremely disturbing that there are people like you who might think this way. Even the die-hard Republicans and ultra-conservatives I know would find your comments offensive.

The reason I'm pointing them out is so that readers who are less "radical" can see that there are more of us on this blog who are sane than not.

Mark (and others)

As always, thank you for your controlled, well-reasoned, and concise insight.

Just to be clear, I don't advocate an official policy of "torture".
Yes, we're trying to take the moral high ground.
Yes, our reputation matters (to a degree).
Yes, we don't want to aid in terrorist recruitment.

But what is right is not always legal,

and what is legal is not always right.

And I would choose right over legal and live with the consequences.

"

In a college-level comparative religion class, there was once a professor who began the first day with the following statement:

There are 12 major religions in the world. While many of them have many things in common, most notably, 11 of them have 1 thing in common - tolerance for the other religions.

1 religion, however, does not share that tenant. Islam."

That professor should not be teaching in any university. Every single one of the "great religions" (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) has black marks on its history. For anyone to suggest that Islam is the least tolerant is asinine and unbelievably ignorant. Within each group are fundamentalists which make them intolerant. The statements that this professor made are precisely the type of comments that promote intolerance and war.

BTW - Buddhism is the only "religion" (it's in parenthesis because it technically is NOT a religion) whose tenets categorically oppose war. In fact, when Tibet, formerly a warrior country, embraced Buddhism hundreds of years ago, they disarmed, later unable to protect themselves from invaders.

"Islamists are fundamentally incapable of peacefully coexisting with any "cows" (as they call us) who have not signed up to be slaves of Allah."

You need to be sure to add the word "fundamentalist" in front of Muslims when referring to jihadists, 'lest it be interpreted as your referring to all Muslims. And the word is Muslim, not Islamist.

One last point -- "jihad" has been interpreted by the Wahabis, a fundamentalist sect in Saudi Arabia, as a war against those who oppose Islam. Most Muslims interpret it as an "internal struggle." It's really no different than fundamentalist Christians who think that homosexuals don't have the right to exist, or that it's okay to bomb a family planning clinic that gives abortions.

My point is that careless generalizations are dangerous and grossly unfair, regardless of whether you're talking about a person, an entity, or a religion.

The notion that Hillary was inevitable has been media mystique not based on genuiune regard for Hillary herself or any positions. Slippage, probably not... just genuine recognition that the support for her is as slippery as her positions. When the fix for social security is a bipartisan commission, well, that's a position one can't get excited about. Frankly, the Obama/storm trooper U-Tube video was quite telling about the extent to which she thought preaching babble to zombies was a winning strategy. The zombies woke up.

My $.02 on the torture discussion follows.

jimD said: "But I would make a distinction between torture as a policy and a hypothetical situation where a captured terrorist has knowledge of the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon making its way to one of our cities."

I believe it was the Marine JAG who testified to the effect that he would do whatever he had to in order to save lives from a hypothetical terrorist, but that he would properly face the Court Martial that followed his unlawful "interrogation".

We cannot make exceptions for torture in the law or in social policy. However, were
USMCMike, for example, to face a court martial after obtaining by torture, from a Jihadist, the location of a backpack nuke inside the Loop in Chicago, he would raise legitimate mitigating factors at his trial [perhaps duress, perhaps defense of others] that would be heard with sympathy by the court.

If he actually saved Chicago, he might lose 1/3 pay for 30 days for messing up a terrorist.

Yes, the law can recognize the difference between that hypothetical and the figurative random tearing of wings off insects. But torture nevertheless can not be our policy or be made lawful, for all the reasons that were stated here today, and more.

vienna12 -- Despite your obvious drooling for Hillary Clinton, all Senators, despite their age or term number, are considered "junior" Senators in their state, if the other has been in the Senate longer.

Unfortunately for NY, Chuck has been there longer.

Ted outranks John, making John Kerry the "junior" Senator from Mass.

It's not an attack.

The men aren't piling on this weak little woman who is simultaneously strong enough to fight terrorists and protect America.

Stop drooling.

These polls recently are indications of how the "Media Darlings" Rudy and Obama, get the most favorable coverage possible. Examples are the Sunday Iowa poll with Obama in the lead, and today's Rasmussen with Rudy tied with Mike at 18%. Most of the media tried to give Rudy every way possible to hush up the widely growing scandal that surfaced a few days ago. The Sunday Iowa poll was front page headlines in a lot of newspapers as well as the lead in the TV Talk shows. My earlier post showed how polls could be manipulated, this shows how the media bias is exposed.

To CC: The WashPost reporters are driving me nuts in print and on CNN and MSNBC by yucking it up with the host and sneering at HRC NOW. And Chris, have you always labeled Hillary as the the "junior" Senator from New York? She is in her second term. Contrast that with the real junior Obama. Some "reporter," was it you?, said in an online chat recently that reporters are angry at Hillary for not giving them enough time. That moment of honesty explains a lot about the media frenzy about her these days. I do hope that the public will see what the media are really doing--promoting congenial Obama because he is so comfy for them.

I think this represents a natural tightening due to the fact that there are a lot of folk just now paying attention with all of the ads and attacks...http://www.enewsreference.com

Chris,
David Corn has an excellent column that explains why Clinton and her campaign have gone off the tracks recently.
Seems they are being guided by a deep hatred for Obama and feel he is being 'uppity' for daring to think he can deny HRc the nomination.
for real.
And if this is how they are operating, then the hate is taking over reason and showing in the dumb moves they have made recently.
This could undo her campaign.
I do wonder if her campaign have also internals that we don't know about that have set them off on this bender.
anyway, it would be good for you to read this column.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/12/hillary-on-obama-fear-and-hatr.html

i thought you had a family zouk -- why aren't you spending quality time with them -- or is that a lie like all your other lies?

'guiliani didn't profit and didn't intend malfeasance'

LOL. City taxpayers paid for police to walk Judy's dog and cart her friends around. Andno one has profited more from 9/11 than Rudy Guiliani. Like he said, 9/11 didn't make his career, but it sure helped...

"George Bush says he got the new NIE report last week: Oh, really?
By: John Amato @ 1:01 PM - PST

I just went through Bush's NIE presser and it was pretty disturbing all around. The war drumbeat against Iran has been going on for sooo long now. You can understand why this report shatters the Bush/Cheney doctrine of immorally--attacking-a-country--that hasn't attacked us. It's a virtual replay of their Iraq intelligence scam. NBC's David Gregory, called Bush on his "hyping" this scam just like he did with Iraq. Bush ineffectually told David Gregory that he just got the results of the NIE report last week.

Download (934) | Play (1169) Download (493) | Play (606)

Q Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?
"

WWW.CROOKSANDLIARS.COM

yES THEY DO. rIGHT ZOUK

hahahhahaha

"Right Claims Iran NIE a CIA Plot Against Bush
By: Nicole Belle @ 1:46 PM - PST Another bang-your-head-against-the-keyboard moment.

Neocon Grandfather Emeritus Norman Podhoretz-now serving as FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR (oh, help us all) to Rudy Giuliani-has decided that the NIE report is a deliberate attempt by the CIA to subvert the Bush Doctrine.

Un-fricking-believable.

How 'bout this, Norm? YOU'RE WRONG. You've always been wrong and you will continue to always be wrong. Always. The only 'conspiracy' here is the one that gives you any kind of platform to continue to further your utter and complete wrongness.
"

"A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted a top Democratic fundraiser accused of cheating investors of at least $20 million and using some of the money for illegal donations to political candidates such as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

business as usual - if you're a clinton

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 4, 2007 06:09 PM
"

What will you talk about when obama is the nominee? how will you funtion without a boogie man? At least only the dwindling dittoheads stil beleive you. Everyone else in , not only the country, but the world see you for the fascists you are.

how can you win zouk? how cna your party win? To win you need to GET more converts to fascism. you need more mindless robots. From my vantage point your people are dropping liek flies. Nobody wants anything to do with the RNC. But they is zouk. Live from his momma's basement all day everyday. What is your goal? how many republcain converts do you get coming here, you think? how about rush and fox? how many converts are they producing? I see your numbers dying out. The way of he do-do.

Cow Folk are no longer viable in america 2007. your people have been passed by. You can never defeat truth with lies smears and misdirection.

In terms of your attacks on drindl. Does that help your cause? If so, with what kind of person? Do you think fascists are out there blogging having conversations and debating? Is that what a fascist does? No. that is why the same 3 of you cowards are here all day everyday. you have to represent your movement. If your not here, who will be.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAA.

you show your faces.

Only one problem - neither huck nor the Rudy story has any actual legs. Huck will have his 15 minutes and will spiral into oblivion once the liberal press decides to stop conflating him and insted do him in. he has no substance to speak of and all those feel good aw shucks statements don't go far.

Same wih the silly "scandel" about rudy's mistress. he has nothing to do with paying for security or deciding to take it or not. It is not an option.

However, presidential pardons are optional and the option can be exercised with glee if your brother gets a big payout.

this is called lining your pockets. guiliani didn't profit and didn't intend malfeasance. but I presume those differences go beyond what Libs want to consider.

Where did all those FBI files come from, I mean where did they go? I mean how did they get in here? why are all those Republican IRS forms sitting here. how do these things happen? Lib Magic.

"how is it that all of a sudden all intelligence is perfect and beleivable? I think I have the key - if any data makes the US look bad - it is 100% credible. If any info makes the US look good - it is a republican lie. Like the lie about the surge working. I think it might be time to stop "suspending disbelief" and maybe go with the facts for a change.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 4, 2007 06:01 PM
"

The surge is working? ALRIHGT. WHOA. Let's bring the troops home. The surge is working everybody. HAHHAHAHAAHA

you are a riot Zouk. Zero tolerance for reality. Your party is done. They have been lying to you for years now. But you still trust they are lying to you in your best interests? I thought you republcaisn didn't trust the government. Why all of a sudden they are infalable? Why do you hate the terrorists, yet turn away from bush and rudy's terrorism ties?

Immagration tough guys. That is your new platform, right. That is what is going to save your party? You pulled it out of the blue, last year. You are the tough immagration party. ENlighten me. Who offered the last blanket amnesty in 1986? What has your party done since to secure the border, and enforce the immagration laws? I know, NOW you care abou timmagration. now you do, since it's all you got let. What, you were saving this issue for decades? HAHAHAHAH

your party is done. Enjoy yourirrelevance.

OK Mark, I take your point. I still say HRC and Rudy are the likelies. But, to put it in your terms, are they the favorites 'against the field'?

Not so sure anymore.

"Does the USA Today survey represent serious slippage by Giuliani..."

It represents that Giuliani-- oh wait, another poll coming in...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

It means that a real candidate has come along so the Republicans don't have to swallow the man who tried to cover up his security detail tending to his mistress at taxpayer expense. It means that they are going for...

MIKE HUCKABEE, NOW TIED WITH GIULIANI NATIONALLY!

A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted a top Democratic fundraiser accused of cheating investors of at least $20 million and using some of the money for illegal donations to political candidates such as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

business as usual - if you're a clinton

KOZ - Your 5:55P post is a take I may have rejected [in my head] too soon. That is a recurring problem with my internal conversations - no checks and balances apply.

Why am I hearing nothing from the right in regards to this iran news?

you mean the idea that an invasion of its neighbor convinced Iran that it better not have a secret nuclear program. that it also convinced Libya of the same thing?

how is it that all of a sudden all intelligence is perfect and beleivable? I think I have the key - if any data makes the US look bad - it is 100% credible. If any info makes the US look good - it is a republican lie. Like the lie about the surge working. I think it might be time to stop "suspending disbelief" and maybe go with the facts for a change.

""Of and btw, Im not in the Peace Corp because I have a husband and a child to raise."

--So does Hillary Clinton

--Why attack Zouk for not being in Iraq?

I hate it when rules must apply to us all.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 4, 2007 05:12 PM
"

Because we can fight for peace right here. If you want war, GO GET SOME. But do not wage war agaisnt your own countrymen. That is why your are traitors. That is why you are terrorists. That is why your are fascists.

Bu all means have your beleifs. It's when your beliefs infringe on MY rights. Then we have a problem. Sound familar?

"Mike, I find your unique range of views quite interesting. What does the Pope think about acts of torture, I wonder?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 4, 2007 05:09 PM
"

Teh pope does not represent america. The pope does not even represent christans. The pope represents one section of one faith. That's it. God left the catholics when they left God, IMO.

Which is worse - not fighting about your security detail and going on with your day to day or selling Presidential pardons for 300K cash payment to your brother. can these even be compared?

"I support moderate Muslims. I shouldn't have to say that to make everyone in the audience comfortable with my attacks on the JIHADISTS."

Well, considering that you are caliming the radicals have taken over the religion & you endorse killing all the radicals, perhaps a clarifying statement is in order. Is it really a surprise that the radicals are convincing moderates to join their cause by claiming that we're fighting a war against islam?

"There are "Keys" to all of the these polls, included, but not limited to 1. Area of the country, 2. Makeup of those polled, age, gender, etc.. 3. The likelihood of the person actually voting. 4. Sequence of the questions. These are known as "Internals" and can and does effect the actual outcome that is arrived at by somewhere in the 3 to 5% + or - range that could be added to the margin of error, but is not considered in most by the poll takers.

Posted by: lylepink | December 4, 2007 05:12 PM

"

Pink? What are you doing? I should have known you would dispute the polls. Man.

It's alright. Look at the bright side. Just because things don't go your way, or mine, doesn't mean the info is bogus. Have you learned nothing the last week.

Why am I hearing nothing from the right in regards to this iran news? Nothing on O'Liely, nothing on hannity. I was all excited last night. Nothing. Just liek the old days when they would black out all news for anna nicole or lindsey lohan.

At least they show their face. I guess that's all I can ask for

Mark - what do you think of the idea that lots of bagggage can be a good thing. If another story about hillaries corruption surfaces, no one even bats an eye. but wait until the first story about Huck comes out. It will be big news.

hillary will be releasing some nasty dirt on Obama soon, through some sort of shadow group. it will play big becuase he has no record to dilute it.

rudy and Hillary may be the only two who can withstand the onslought over time.

"These two have more baggage than their opponents, and it must weigh them down over the long haul."

It can only weigh them down if the baggage sticks.

I'm no RG guy, but if an accountant messed up, it's not his fault. And if the comptroller took years to find the error, even worse.

Whereas, nothing sticks to a Clinton.

I am surprised that HRC and RG are still leading the polls.

I offered to JD to bet the field against either of them, months ago.
I see that JD is no longer even willing to assure us of HRC's inevitability, and KOZ, an RG supporter, to his credit, has never predicted a slam dunk for his guy.

These two have more baggage than their opponents, and it must weigh them down over the long haul.

Better, now can all you Libs please give the guy in the uniform a standing ovation. Afterwards you can cut his civilian support out from under him with a 41st try at budget gimickery and finessing a battlefield loss. Remember, even one loss of life is a tragedy. and so on.

I think drindl slunk off to spend some quality time with her family. now to find a way to also dispel the rufas pest.

Sorry Zouk -- I forgot to establish my "street cred" by prefacing all of my comments with a P.C. blanket support for Muslims. I'll do better next time.

Marine mike - you are not permitted to pass judgment on anyone, especially Muslims, gays, blacks/mexicans/any victim minority or Lesbians, until after a sufficient trial whereby all the facts are subjected to liberal interpretation. It doesn't matter if they are shooting at you, hitting on you, spending your money, or changing your laws, you may not make any judgments until after court,

Please comply.

bsimon -- I see how that could happen, but only by a dishonest broker.

By an Amy Goodman, for example, in her interview this morning of Lou Dobbs.

I support moderate Muslims. I shouldn't have to say that to make everyone in the audience comfortable with my attacks on the JIHADISTS.

I don't think you have to claim that waterboarding produces 100% accurate information in all cases, every time it has been used, to justify why we should use it.

For you liberals out there -- imagine if you had to prove not only that human beings are 100% to blame for global warming, but that we stand a 100% chance of 'saving the planet'.

Not only could you NEVER meet that burden, but even if you eventually (somehow) could, if you were right, it would be too late and we would all be doomed to burn to death.

USMC_Mike, do you see how your comments could be interpreted as an intolerance for Islam - the very thing you accuse that religion of being?

"What is inconsistent about that?"

"Islam is uniquely intolerant, on a global scale. It has been hijacked by Islamists. "

"1 religion, however, does not share [tolerance for the other religions]. Islam."

you think making nasty remarks about people's families is funny?

you mean like Mrs Guiliani?

We have just discovered the biggest hypocrite and she lives on this blog. but her rules don't apply to her - just like most Dems.

""Waterboarding has been used to obtain information"

wait a minute there, that doesn't go along with our Liberal world view.
"

Was it the information saying saddam had wmd's? Is that the info? Good work?

What about Iran? Did torturing get you that piece of gold also?

for all the false information your people are putting out, kind of speaks agaisnt their methods, doesn't it. If they are torturing people and all or most of their intel is false, then do you have to look at the methods of aquireing the info? Not to the gop. They don't do accountability. they do what they want, because they can. Or think they can. Who stops them? Simon, pink, moderates? who stops the gop from doing whatever it wants when it wants, without regard for country the future or laws? Moderates? Democrats? When?

Somebody's got to. I didn't start blogging or getting involved until after bush was elected the second time. Somebody's got to do something. they are spending my children's money. My brother could get drafted. But I know, us "liberals" are the cause to allthe worlds ill's.

proud -- I don't think protecting innocent people is situational ethics.

I stand for protecting innocent unborn,

for protecting innocent Americans from terrorism,

and for protecting innocent children of God from tyranny.

What is inconsistent about that?

srobinson2 -- thank you for the examples. I never claimed any other religion has a perfect history, or that any other religion does not have its fanatics.

Islam is uniquely intolerant, on a global scale. It has been hijacked by Islamists.

It's like comparing the sun to a candle.

"In a college-level comparative religion class, there was once a professor who began the first day with the following statement:

There are 12 major religions in the world. While many of them have many things in common, most notably, 11 of them have 1 thing in common - tolerance for the other religions.

1 religion, however, does not share that tenant. Islam.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 4, 2007 05:03 PM
"

your teacher should get fired for broad characterizations and making false statements. It's happening, now. Slower than I would hope. The go loves to test teh boundries, don't they? They love to hide behind our freedoms while destroying those they don't "need".

Mike, A person's faith is never something I would malign or make jokes about. You seem to be applying situational ethics on some weighty issues and in an uneven fashion. That is what I call into question.

In the MTV forum last night with Sen. McCain, he spoke about his faith saying it was something he preferred to keep fairly private. He told the audience of his captor in Vietnam who had loosened the ropes binding him during his 5 hour shift one day, and then on Christmas day had drawn the sign of the cross in the dirt with his foot in McCain's cell, then erased it quickly so none of the other guards could see.

'nd laugh at the above comment -- out loud.'

you think making nasty remarks about people's families is funny?

clearly, you're as big an as*hole as zouk. too bad for you.

Too far, zouk, too far my friend.

wikepedia -- the Universe's ultimate source of Truth.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 4, 2007 05:00 PM
"

If you can't rebute the point, attack the source. The gop manta for eliminating a party from the political table of relevance.

USMC_Mike, every college has a professor or ten who have a few sweeping generalizations to explain everything that ever happened. Doesn't mean they're right, especially when what they say confirms your own preconceived notions (always a danger signal).

Fire up your browser and look up the following and then tell me about how Islam is uniquely intolorant of other religions--

Srebrenica Massacre
Northern Ireland
Assasination of Ghandi, causes
Holocaust
Thirty Years War
The Inqusition
Masada

(Admittedly, I'm not aware of any pograms, murders or massacres of unbelievers by Buddhists or Taoists.)

And then, when you're done with that assignment, look up "people of the book."

'Proud -- I assume you either know what the Pope thinks about it, or could easily find out, but you have instead resorted to taking an oh-so-subtle shot at my faith because I disagree with your hero McCain.'

she's simply pointing out that the Pope does not agree with your position.

"Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding..."

The US is one of them.

Mommy - what's for dinner?

"Not now kid, I'm blogging. can't you see someone has to save the free world from itself?"

But I need help with my homework.

I'm very busy here.

But all you ever do is stare at that screen.

I am raising my kids, now go away.

"It can OBTAIN INFORMATION so according to this cite, it is effective."

Does the source mention the reliability of the info?

More specifically, does it claim that such info is only available through waterboarding or other forms of torture?

"But we won the war, and saved countless more.

Would you NOT have dropped the bomb?
"

Again. Gop propoganda and false justification. Who was more to fear. The Real axis, or a bunch or people riding camels in the desert. your comparing apples to oranges. I know you are laughing and giggling to yoruself with all this. Independant thinkers will read this and see how foolish you are. There is a reson your party is in the dumps. Nobody wants to be put in the "fascist" camp, with you clowns..

Explain why we should fear the "terrorists" and I'll give you respect. Why should we fear them more than the chinesse? The chineese can actually do something. These terrorists couldn't take ny, la chicago, much less america.explain.

Fear has crippled you people. Work on that. When you grow up and get older, you will understand where us liberals are coming from. Fear doesn't exist, like pain. you wer einthe marines, you should know pain is a senor reaction. Why does your fear not extend?

"...go back to raising the next generation of worthless hippies and pitiful spinless men."

Claudia, I respect your dad for his service to our nation, but I can't help but think you're a lunatic today, and laugh at the above comment -- out loud.

'the next generation of worthless hippies and pitiful spinless men.'

f*ck you zouk, you miserable cheesy little mental midget. you don't have a job-- you're on here all day. nor do you have any rational thought process. you resort to insulting my family because you have nothing worthwile to say -- you useless piece of human garbage.

"I hate it when rules must apply to us all."

"if you have to misrepresent what I said, you stand on nothing."


Indeed.

drindl - too busy lining your own pockets to follow your convictions? why aren't you in amnesty International? If not you are not entitled to an opinion. (and you can always tell opinion by the lack of any reason, links or otherwise coherent input)

and since you don't work for the IRS we won't be considering your views on any tax policy. and since you don't work for the EPA, your bizarro thoughts on climatology will go unheeded. etc.

since you don't work, maybe you should retire from this blog entirely and go back to raising the next generation of worthless hippies and pitiful spinless men.

claudia -- if you have to misrepresent what I said, you stand on nothing.

I never advocated "killing all [billion] Muslims".

Just the terrorists. The ones who would rape and decapitate you if they could.

claudialong,
"Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate." It can OBTAIN INFORMATION so according to this cite, it is effective.

"means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject." So, in other words, if done right, no physical damage and you obtain information.

"Numerous experts have described this technique as torture." Numerous experts have described this technique as not torture.

"Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding..." Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for allowing a class of children to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

"Because when it comes to keeping a BOMB from exploding in Los Angeles, you are clearly not qualified to have a coherent discussion."

I'm going to speak for all liberals here, hope no one is offened.

Fear. Are you rally scared of these people, gop? Really. Goat herders half way around the world. Do you really fear them? Do you sit up at night fearing a man with nothing of value but a few goats a donkey and an ak. Really?

Come on gop. Your not that cowardly are you? How did you people make it through the cold war? How did america make it through our american revolution, when we had NONE of the advantages over the enemy. Are the "terrorist" a threat? To whom? Isreal?

think before attacking. Work on yourselves and your own fear gop. Do not gut the coutnry and it's values because yoru scared. think about the future. Where we were and where we are now.

you peopel would have never made it though the american revolution. None of the laws that make this country great would exist if you fascists had your way.

Explain, why are you NOT cowards? How am I , a liberals, to think you tough guys are not terrorists but really scared to death of cow herders.

Explain. Either you are fascist sabotuers or cowards. Which is it?

Proud -- I assume you either know what the Pope thinks about it, or could easily find out, but you have instead resorted to taking an oh-so-subtle shot at my faith because I disagree with your hero McCain.

You never responded to my 20/80 comment above.

Islamists have a presence in every country in the world and do not represent any single nation. Yet each pocket is a threat to civilization.'

so you think we should kill all muslims, then? way to go, usmc. what a good christian you are.

"Of and btw, Im not in the Peace Corp because I have a husband and a child to raise."

--So does Hillary Clinton

--Why attack Zouk for not being in Iraq?

I hate it when rules must apply to us all.

There are "Keys" to all of the these polls, included, but not limited to 1. Area of the country, 2. Makeup of those polled, age, gender, etc.. 3. The likelihood of the person actually voting. 4. Sequence of the questions. These are known as "Internals" and can and does effect the actual outcome that is arrived at by somewhere in the 3 to 5% + or - range that could be added to the margin of error, but is not considered in most by the poll takers.

"Is that a word. Maybe a triple negative? irregardless, it shows a paucity of thinking skill."

Undisirregardlessly, does not the clever playground reference of a nursery school rime likewise demonstrate a paucity of cognitive efforts?

Mike, I find your unique range of views quite interesting. What does the Pope think about acts of torture, I wonder?

"Because when it comes to keeping a BOMB from exploding in Los Angeles, you are clearly not qualified to have a coherent discussion."

And you are not qualitified to have a coherent discussion of much of anything, apparently.

Torture does not produce accurate information. End of story. A person being tortured will say anything to make it stop. Torture is mostly useful for making people confess to things they didn't do.

But we don't torture in this country, right? That's what your president says. Of and btw, Im not in the Peace Corp because I have a husband and a child to raise. a citizen in this country is sstill free to criticize their government -- aren't they?

Islamists are fundamentally incapable of peacefully coexisting with any "cows" (as they call us) who have not signed up to be slaves of Allah.

Islamists have a presence in every country in the world and do not represent any single nation. Yet each pocket is a threat to civilization.

Islamists hate the West, especially Britain and the United States, and will stop at nothing to hurt us in a big way.

If you do not understand these 3 characteristics of Islamists, you cannot credibly discuss how to combat them.

"Does the USA Today survey represent serious slippage by Giuliani and Clinton or the natural tightening that should be expected in any race as high profile as this one?"

It's not just the USA Today survey. She's dropping in every survey, both in the national polls and in the state polls from Iowa and New Hampshire.

That said, I don't see what the difference is between "natural tightening that's to be expected" and "serious slippage" attributable to factors specific to the candidates. To the person doing the slipping, its always serious and, as usually happens, its causing panic-induced errors by the frontrunners which will likely lead to more "slippage."

"Waterboarding has been used to obtain information"

wait a minute there, that doesn't go along with our Liberal world view.

"creating no lasting physical damage to the subject" Hey wait, that's not torture either. those darn facts always interfere wtih every Lib argument.

Maybe you so-clever Libs had this other definition of torture in mind - something you are emminently capable of doing all the time:

distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument

"If you fundamentally don't understand radical Islam, you cannot coherently discuss fighting it."

I submit that you do not understand them. The terrorists are opposed to us because we support Israel, we support repressive, authoritarian regimes especially the Saudi monarchy, because we have troops stationed in Moslem countries and because they hate Western culture and believe our culture is poisoning their countries. As Rumsfeld himself said, we are not winning if by our actions we create more terrorists than we kill.

I am NOT advocating that we do not do those things except perhaps supporting repressive regimes to the extent we do. But, we need to understand what motivates them to fight them. We also need to oppose the terrorists on a variety of fronts. One of the most important is undermining their support among the general populations in the Muslem world.

I do not doubt that radical Islamist terrorists would like to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. I just think the scenario that the only way we can uncover details of the plot is by torture is far fetched.

No. If, in the context of the question, a 'tool' is torture, no, we absolutely do not risk losing by not using that 'tool'. In fact, the opposite is the case - we risk losing by torturing."

Good point simon. We have nukes at our disposal to. By the gop rationalization we should be nuking peopel, cause we can. Who where subscibes to that? You show your face gop. Now you know why your party is done for thirty years. What you want, is not america. What you want has been tried and failed. We defeated the NAzi's

In a college-level comparative religion class, there was once a professor who began the first day with the following statement:

There are 12 major religions in the world. While many of them have many things in common, most notably, 11 of them have 1 thing in common - tolerance for the other religions.

1 religion, however, does not share that tenant. Islam.

For both sides -- the results reflect people beginning to pay attention. Nothing really surprising on the Democratic side -- very little movement across the board.

It's the Republican race that I think is more interesting, especially where Huckabee is concerned. This just out today from an AP-Pew Poll in Iowa:

Mitt Romney, 25 percent
Mike Huckabee, 24 percent
Rudy Giuliani, 14 percent

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_el_pr/poll2008_iowa;_ylt=Ano2ZojN.i7IvM4YpePjWIOyFz4D

This is significant for the GOP because it's the pro-life party, and many Christians, Catholics included, are suspicious of Mormonism. I thus believe that this new poll in Iowa will soon be reflected nationally.

But the situation is different on the Dem side. While you see Clinton slipping, outside of Iowa, there's little movement for Barack and Edwards. Nationally, the gap between Clinton & these two guys remains in the double digits. Iowa is in no way representative of Democrats as a whole, so I don't think it will have as much effect on how the rest of the early states vote, especially given that the New Hampshire vote takes place only a week later.

"all you need to know, piper, is that I would be lucky to be waterboarded if I were captured by these nut cases. That would be getting off easy."

If you play by terrorists rules, usmc, does that make you a terrorist?

unrebuttable

Is that a word. Maybe a triple negative? irregardless, it shows a paucity of thinking skill.

but if the name fits.....

wikepedia -- the Universe's ultimate source of Truth.

drindl - why aren't you at amnesty international?

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=waterboarding&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

here's some pictures. it dates back to the Inquisition, by the way.

"We are in a battle for hearts and minds in the struggle against terrorism. We don't help our cause by torture. "

Will you "moderates" NOW, finally acknowledge the gop is in with the terrorist? Will you admit that now? Everything they do generates more terroists and makes the world more angry.

do you now realize they are lying to you, after iran info. Does bush have to make a public statement saying saudi arabia is now our "sister nation" for you people to realize the gop is the party of terrorists?

Gop (JD MARK, USMC), defend yourselves. How is your party NOT a party of traitors. I will spell it out for you. How are you not terrorists, gop? HEre is the defination of the word, because I realize you have years of double think and propoganda to get through. I can't spell it out any clearer. Defend youselves gop,and you positions. Traitors? Terrorists?

"Terrorism in the modern sense[1] is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilizing an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause.
"

"Because when it comes to keeping a BOMB from exploding in Los Angeles, you are clearly not qualified to have a coherent discussion."

Mike, by putting the word 'bomb' in all caps, your point becomes irrefutable.


zouk writes "simple simon"

You sir, are likewise unrebuttable, in starting your post with such a clever and unique nickname. I've never heard that before.

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face[1] to force the inhalation of water into the lungs.[2] Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[3] and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure.[4] Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.[5]
Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

bsimon -- you are not.

Contrary to the liberal opinion, WE are not the cause of radical islam.

Unfortunately, we are (one of) the target(s).

"After all the constitution should apply equally to the entire planet." LOL

"They want to blow us up because they hate us - our values - what we stand for - our Christian virtues - our religious tolerance.
If you fundamentally don't understand radical Islam, you cannot coherently discuss fighting it."


You seem to think that we, or our values, are the cause of radical islam. Am I understanding you correctly?

bsimon -- we compramised those values by dropping the bomb in Japan.

We killed countless innocent.

But we won the war, and saved countless more.

Would you NOT have dropped the bomb?

""How dare you compare the US to Nazis."

Your outrage is misplaced. Perhaps you should be more upset with the people torturing in our name, rather than criticizing those who find the practice reprehensible.
"

Sorry I'm reading and catching up. Word is born.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

-Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani have slipped, and will continue to slip in this election. This should not come as a surprise. The sudden collapse is the result of two factors: 1) Name recognition and the ability to collect swaths of campaign contributions from wealthy, well-to-do lobbyists earns you initial attention, but society at large generally resents this quality. I pass no judgment here, this is certainly an important asset for a (winning) politician. 2) I'm not attacking the media, but I submit that the media has largely allowed these aforementioned qualities to dictate the race. Therefore, Guiliani & Clinton naturally emerged as the "front-runners."
-If the election remains fluid, I believe John Edwards & John McCain will emerge as the "real" front-runners. If you think about it, neither party is foolish enough to throw it away completely. These two are the sensible choice for each party.
-McCain, though a little old, does not sound as soulless as his Republican counterparts. McCain is a respectable, dignified politician.
-Edwards, though a bit stale, is a compassionate politician.

-Say what you will about the other "top-tier" candidates, but liberals & conservatives should be able to agree that Edwards and McCain appear to be the best leaders.

-Edwards-Obama v. McCain-Huckabee

Eugene Debs '08

simple simon - let's be sure to increase the defense budget so all our grunts can go to law school. we wouldn't want them messing up any crime scenes with inadvertant firing or blowing things up. and make sure they tell the enemy their rights as they are surrenduring. After all the constitution should apply equally to the entire planet. and be sure to print all those secrets that come out in trial right on the front page of the NYTimes.

And after all this does anyone still wonder why Liberals are not trusted with defending the country and don't win Presidential elections.

Let's go back to talking about something that doesn't make my blood pressure spike, like why you want to raise taxes, nationalize medicine, spend dollars on phony climate 'science', or retreat from a war we can and should win.

Because when it comes to keeping a BOMB from exploding in Los Angeles, you are clearly not qualified to have a coherent discussion.

"They want to blow us up because they hate us - our values - what we stand for - our Christian virtues - our religious tolerance."

And some of those values are valuing human rights and the rule of law. We absolutely have to demonstrate the superiority of those values - by not compromising them - in order to defeat them.

"What did Orwell say? I think it was "All animals are created equal - but some are more equal than others."

If that doesn't ring a bell, its from "Animal Farm", where the pigs rewrite their list of commandments in order to justify some changes.
"

Word is word simon. Now you know how the term "pigs", came to be for cops. :)

Citizens and not. Starship troopers (which the military is handing out to our brave soldiers). you get three books now in basic. The military code, a religous book, and starship troopers. Take from that what you will.

"Surely conservatives don't care about this country more than liberals?"

Conservative thinking: In order to save it, we had to destroy it.

wrong bsimon.

These people don't want to blow us up because we 'torture' the ones we capture.

They want to blow us up because they hate us - our values - what we stand for - our Christian virtues - our religious tolerance.

If you fundamentally don't understand radical Islam, you cannot coherently discuss fighting it.

"It's a sad time in America when pouring water on a terrorist's face to save American lives is likened to treason and 'torturing to death'."

If we don't tortue then we don't have to worry about this, do we?

"This might not bother claudia or bsimon, but it bothers me."

That you have to resort to misrepresentations implies that your argument is failing.

Torturing incites more people to side with the radicals, which means more volunteers for the suicide missions that may eventually place WMDs in US cities. The policies that you are endorsing - encouraging - put us at greater risk, not lesser.

"I heard that the HRC camp is now accusing Obama's camp of dirty tricks to her Iowa and NH campaigns. Of course, HRC always takes the high road when it comes to politics. Go ask Vince Foster.

(Oh wait, I'm sorry, he shot himself .... in the back of the head .... 3 times .... )
"

TO THE MODERATES HERE, PINK simon, What would these people do, how would they compete if they didn't have clinton garbage to pull up from a decade ago? What if Ted Kenneddy were gone, and these clowns can't talk about things from the 70's? What would these fascists do then? Is clinton and kenneddy that important to you, that you would give these people who hate their country and the democrats any wiggle room.

I would think the less people with shady pasts the better. Do we really need to fight these battles for decades on end?

To JD. When are you people going to let this stuff die? For all your vince foster and ted kenneddy garbage. We're talking, even it it is true, what ten people. How many deaths are a direct result republcains and their "crusades"? Millions? Your complaints and gripes fall on deaf ears.

What would the gop do if they couldn't point the finger? Would they take responsibility for their actions ONCE? It has gotten better in this aspect. These propogandists liek jd have to pull stuff up from decades ago.

Kinda makes you liberals want to start making broad charaterizations about the republcains and their hatred of this country and it's freedoms. Nixon, regan, bush 41, bush 43. All waging war agaisnt america and americans. Do not fear or pity these liars and propogandists people. think about why they attack attack attack. If they do not stay on the offensive they get ripped to shreds. Well, they do anyway, but you get the idea:)

"I also think the idea that torture would be required to prevent a nuclear attack is pretty far-fetched" -Jim

That is why Democrats can NEVER run this country.

Not only is it not far-fetched, I promise you, it is actually happening.

This is rediculous.

I don't see why this is an ideological issue. Why is it that conservatives tend to agree that we should protect ourselves from nuclear or biological attacks, at all costs -- while liberals are more concerned with the rights of terrorists than with the rights of Americans?

Surely conservatives don't care about this country more than liberals?

And here's another one. Why are liberals more concerned with the rights of terrorists than the rights of the innocent unborn?

JD

I certainly agree that we do not need to come down to the level of the terrorists. I also think the idea that torture would be required to prevent a nuclear attack is pretty far-fetched. But I would make a distinction between torture as a policy and a hypothetical situation where a captured terrorist has knowledge of the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon making its way to one of our cities.

mike - the Philippine insurgency was not one of the brighter chapters in our history. The torture used there was more to terrorize the population than to get information. There was a very active Philippine independence movement which we encouraged during the Spanish-American War and which had reason to feel betrayed when we annexed the country as a colony.

JD asks
"At the end of the day, do we risk losing this war if we cannnot use all tools at our disposal?"

No. If, in the context of the question, a 'tool' is torture, no, we absolutely do not risk losing by not using that 'tool'. In fact, the opposite is the case - we risk losing by torturing. The nutshell argument is that the reason our system is better is because of our respect for the rule of law and human rights. The best way to defeat the Islamic radicals is to demonstrate to the world & the Islamic moderates that our system is better. That means that when we capture terrorists, we put them on trial, in front of the world, and list their crimes. You prove them criminals & treat them appropriately. By holding them secretly & torturing them, we are not only lowering ourselves to their level, we're demonstrating that our system is NOT better. That can amount to losing the 'hearts and minds' argument, which will essentially amount to either a 'loss' in the war or, at best, a perpetual conflict.

One minor point - the Geneva convention specifically applies to soldiers in uniform fighting for a country. they also require that the soldier purposefully avoid civilians.

the guys we capture are more akin to spies, who wear no uniform and prey on civilians. You remember what we do to spies don't you?

I don't think actual torture is an official policy of the USA. but if it were my personal call and the situation were grave, I would torture first and take my chances later. better to be judged by 12 than buried by 6.

but this is all just designed to create a false issue. we don't torture, it is against the law.

Yes, Clinton & Guiliani are both actually slipping in their chances to win their respective party nomination. Clinton had a huge shot to shore up the D nomination, and couldn't do it. Her stumbles and Obama's great fundraising has allowed him to overtake her in Iowa. Clinton is still the front runner, but no doubt she has slipped.

Rudy was not given a great shot from the beginning of shoring up the Republican base. He failed in doing so. Romney shot for the early states, which is now unraveling for him in Iowa. Fred Thompson has fizzled out. Huckabee has became the party's standard bearer now as the socially conservative candidate. Plus, he has a record of bold ideas to get things done. Now, he has endorsed the idea of the Fair Tax. He has also engaged himself in a personal and bitter rilvary vs. Romney. With all of these things combining, Guiliani has slipped.

Dr. Jim Olsan, Professor at Texas A&M University, at the George Bush School of Government, former CIA Moscow station chief, and author of the book Fair Play, recently told me --

*we get actionable intelligence from interrogations

*we cannot afford NOT to use it

and -- most surprising

**He is surprised -- shocked -- that a nuclear device has NOT ALREADY been detonated in one of our cities.

That it is only a matter of time.

This might not bother claudia or bsimon, but it bothers me.

We have no choice but to use all tools available to us.

To go along with the "Dated Dean, Married Kerry" idea, this is how I think the Democratic candidates are viewed by the Democratic voters right now (disclaimer, since I'm a man, I will compare them all as if they were females.... this is not intended to be an in-depth look at the female gender, just for fun)

Clinton - your friends either lover her or hate her; has all of the attributes you are looking for, but you're not sure if it will drive a wedge between your friends; sends mixed messages

Obama - the hot looker; everyone is really interested in her and like her, but they are just not sure if she is ready for a real relationship

Edwards - the high school sweety; fun and energenic and full of passion; is it the real thing or is it nostalgia and time truly passed her by

Biden - the cougar, in every way possible; worldy and aggressive; its a cougar, not a wife

Richardson - seems to have it all, but when you meet, there is no real spark

Dodd - Plain Jane; makes a good friend, but you never looked at her like that

Kucinich - the cool chick that you go for one-night stands

Gravel - the chick that you only hook up with if you are really drunk... or no one is looking.

"read about our defeat of the insurgency in the phillipines in 1902."

Didn't we prosecute one of our own for war crimes perpetrated during that conflict - waterboarding to be specific?

All this torture stuff is kind of interesting to me. On the one hand, we don't want to lower ourselves to the level of the animals we are fighting, cutting off heads slowly with knives, strapping bombs to their kids to blow up schoolbuses, etc.

On the other hand, cliches like "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" and "fight fire with fire" come to mind.

At the end of the day, do we risk losing this war (loss defined as they manage to use a nuke to blow up NYC, for example) if we cannnot use all tools at our disposal?

all you need to know, piper, is that I would be lucky to be waterboarded if I were captured by these nut cases. That would be getting off easy.

All you need to know, Marine Corp Mike, is that Japanese soldiers were indeed prosecuted after WWII as war criminals for using two forms of water torture against American soldiers. Waterboarding is torture, which is expressly forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, a treaty signed and ratified by the United States and thus U.S. law.

Or put another way, would waterboarding be acceptable treatment to be used against you if captured by an enemy on foreign soil? After all, we set an example, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

jimd -- read about our defeat of the insurgency in the phillipines in 1902.

You defeat the insurgency by using terrorism -- their weapon of choice -- against them (yes, in combination with winning the hearts and minds of the population).

If any of you tortue fanatics don't think for one second you would torture someone who was connected with kidnapping your daughter/wife/husband/whatever to SAVE THEIR LIFE, you are not being intillectually dishonest.

There is a time and a place for self-examination.

But why are we more outraged at Americans trying to save American lives than we are about radical Islamic Nazi's who are relentlessly and ruthlessly pursuing world religios domination?

My outrage is misplaced? My outrage is against terrorists -- takers of innocent life.

You sir, your outrage is misplaced.

"It's a sad time in America when pouring water on a terrorist's face to save American lives is likened to treason and 'torturing to death'".

I wouldn't say it has been likened to treason just a betrayal of this country's ideals. Waterboarding entails a bit more than pouring water on someone's face. The one candidate in the race who has been tortured is vehemently opposed to it. Most of the military hierarchy is strongly opposed to it. The presumption that torture produces accurate information is questionable at best. It usually results in the one being tortured saying what he thinks the interrogators want to hear. I would also submit that a great part of US strength in the world is based on our ideals.

We are in a battle for hearts and minds in the struggle against terrorism. We don't help our cause by torture. As the Army counterinsurgency manual, authored by General Petraeus, says (I paraphrase) you do not defeat an insurgency by killing all the insurgents, you defeat an insurgency by persuading the population that supports them to stop supporting them.

"How dare you compare the US to Nazis."

Your outrage is misplaced. Perhaps you should be more upset with the people torturing in our name, rather than criticizing those who find the practice reprehensible.

We're not talking about a baptism here, USMC Mike. Waterboarding is torture. It violates the Geneva Conventions. Civilized societies don't torture. McCain is right on this, and is Huckabee agrees, bully for him.

Speaking as a partisan, I hope the republicans nominate a waterboarding advocate. He'll be easy to debate. But as an American, I'm embarrassed this is even an issue to be debated.

You and Rosie have said some pretty extraordinary things.

Zouk is right. If you think he should be in Iraq, I think you should be in the peace corps. Why aren't you, hypocrite?

In WWII Nazis dropped babies off roof-tops to see how far they bounced. Go to a Halocaust museum.

How dare you compare the US to Nazis.

I'm going to call BS on that one right now.

drindl - why don't you work for amnesty International. If you don't your opinion means nothing.

And your facts are as usual - made up.

Bill Clinton said Tuesday that if reporters covered the candidates' public records better, his wife's presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals. During a campaign stop on behalf of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president said he can't understand why so much of the media coverage of the campaign ignores her experience

Ummm - because there is none?????

Please stop the BS Mike. You know that the actual technique is forcing water down the throat of someone lying on his back with his head lower than his feet so the water will flow down into his lungs. It is controlled drowning, and if not stopped in time will result in death. Your dishonesty is disgusting. Over 100 persons --and god knows who they were -- have died in our custody after undergoing the laughingly termed 'enhanced interoogation' hey did you know that's what the Nazis used to call it too?

During WWII, Japanese who used this technique on Americans were prosecuted for crimes agianst humanity.

"It's a sad time in America when pouring water on a terrorist's face to save American lives is likened to treason and 'torturing to death'."


What did Orwell say? I think it was "All animals are created equal - but some are more equal than others."

If that doesn't ring a bell, its from "Animal Farm", where the pigs rewrite their list of commandments in order to justify some changes.

To ride the train of thought further from the topic at hand, Eugene Robinson's article today explores the increasing fearfulness of Americans. It seems that Roosevelt was right - but we've failed to learn the lesson.

I think that both Clinton and Giuliani have limited upsides. They have high negatives for a variety of reasons.

Senator Clinton is deeply mistrusted by many commited liberals. Her personality and public image turn off many people. Many others instinctively recoil from a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession. There is real concern about her electability and the impact of a highly motivated anti-Hillary Republican base turnout on down-ticket Democratic candidates. Her early lead can mainly be attributed to name recognition, nostalgia for her husband's administration and lack of name recognition for her opponents. Should a single major challenger (the most likely one would be Obama) emerge victorious in the first few primaries, I would expect her lead to disintegrate.

Giuliani has high negatives with some core Republican voters for his stands on social issues and guns as well as his turbulent marital history. His personality can be very abrasive and, as he gets more exposure, that can pose problems in many areas of the country. None of his opponents, with the exception of Senator McCain, approaches his name recognition and McCain has his own problems with the Republican base. However, Huckabee and Romney have been getting more national press attention lately and more voters are paying attention as the first contests draw near. I have always thought a Giuliani victory is possible but only if the race does not narrow to him and one other too soon.

"It's a sad time in America now, that being opposed to torturing a possi