I’m always amazed at the fundies’ ability to ignore pointless wars, torture, the needy, the hungry and abused of the world, but they’ll come out in full force against a plan that might actually help people.
Well played fundies, well played.
To object to the methods of torture used against terrorists is to declare them innocent. You’re either with them or against them. The notion that terrorists may be evil but nonetheless should not be tortured is an idea too complex for [Cheney's] brain to process. He is a complete moral simpleton.
Torture is awesome, unless people find out we’re doing it, then it’s bad. But O’Reilly still wants to torture. Even though it puts our soldiers in jeopardy. Yet anyone who puts our soldiers in jeopardy hates America.
Which is more dangerous, torture or photos of torture?
“The more the right wing tries to justify the torture policy, the worse they look. Using national security to justify torture is just a bald-faced attempt to hide the truth. What really went on was simple. The Bush administration felt that Al-Qaida could not be defeated while still preserving what America stands for.”
I’m pretty critical of Fox News, and I make no apologies for that. Fox News, as an entity, as a business, and as a news outlet is almost completely devoid of integrity of any kind. Their most popular anchors are all far-Right radicals (yes, radicals) and the vast majority of their daily reporting contains a gross conservative bias they’re not even trying to hide anymore.
That said, this guy Shepard Smith has gotten my attention recently. He appears to be the lone voice of reason in the black hole of Fox News insanity. I’m sure he’s just as personally conservative as the rest of the crew over there, and I’m sure he and I would disagree on countless issues. But he seems to at least display the kind of sense and sensibility that one would hope for from all prominent journalists.
If you have a few minutes, visit this link and watch both of the embedded videos. In the first video (the YouTube embed) Smith goes up against Iraq War cheerleader Judy Miller (formerly of the New York Times) and some conservo-douchebag who does nothing but equivocate about what is and isn’t torture. Shepard Smith is rightfully dismissive of said douchebag, who keeps citing the meritless and oft-debunked “24 scenario” so popular with torture advocates.
The second video clip is from a discussion on FoxNews.com’s online show The Strategy Room. Smith pretty much goes off, slamming his hand on the desk and yelling, “I don’t give a rat’s ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not fucking torture!!”
(Torture doesn’t “help,” by the way.)
And Smith’s admonishment to anyone who thinks torture is no big deal: “If we are going to be Ronald Reagan’s Shining City on the Hill, we don’t get to torture. We don’t do it.”
Nothing gets the conservo-sphere’s attention like invoking Saint Ronnie. (Actually, the notion of a “Shining City on the Hill” was first proffered in a sermon by 17th century Puritan leader John Winthrop and later cited in speeches by Kennedy and Reagan. It is one of the few ideas on which I agree with Reagan. That is, if I understand it correctly to mean that the United States must lead by example and be a government and a society that others would want to emulate rather than fear. As such, yeah, torture is pretty much off the table.)
In 1947, the United States tried, convicted and executed sentenced to 15 years hard labor a Japanese soldier as a war criminal for waterboarding American POWs.
Just sayin’…
UPDATE: Fixed. I got my facts mixed between sources. Regardless, the point of my comment still stands.
Ken Starr’s Clinton/Lewinsky investigation divided the country, took several years and cost millions of taxpayer dollars.
But we’re being told that an investigation into the Bush administration’s torture policies (you know, where actual laws were broken) would be “too partisan,” “take too long,” and “cost too much.”
Now, I know the country is in a financial bind right now; we clearly aren’t as well-off as we were during Clinton’s term (*sigh*). But surely an issue as important as the torture of another human being by agents of the United States merits at least a look-see.
From February 26, 1993 through Janurary 20, 2001 there were no Islamic terrorist attacks. This was accomplished without illegal invasions, torturing, renditions or eavesdropping on American citizens.
[Incoming Senate Intelligence Committee chair] Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) today:
My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.
Senator Feinstein in 2004
I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI, or for any other senior position, subject only to the requirement that the person be qualified for the job.
The worst part? In 2004 she was talking about Bush’s appointment of Porter Goss, a man who famously admitted, “I am not qualified. I don’t have the language skills… Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don’t have.”
Feinstein is in a snit at the moment because of Obama’s choice of former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to head the CIA. She complains that she and [outgoing Senate Intelligence Committee chair] Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) were not consulted and were not “informed about the selection.” Furthermore, although Panetta has a reputation as an excellent administrator, there are complaints that he has no career national intelligence experience (which, it must be pointed out, is not officially a requirement for the job.)
However, my sympathy runneth dry because of Feinstein’s inconsistency (as demonstrated above) and because, as Bob Cesca puts it, “when it came to approving of Bush nominees who defended torture, illegal wirteapping, and the Iraq war, Feinstein and Rockefeller never complained.”
Check out their voting records at the link:
UPDATE: It bears mentioning that a large part of the reason Panetta was chosen is because he is completely removed from the culture of torture and abuse that is rampant in the CIA. Very few (none?) of the possible candidates from within the agency could show clean hands when it came to such violations.
UPDATE 2: Feinstein Explains Her Reticence About Panetta Nomination
