Nothing shows human compassion, understanding the rule of law and foreign affairs more than an elected official who is the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee making waterboarding jokes.
On foreign affairs, I understand what Guantanamo has come to mean in world opinion. But we can fix that, without closing Guantanamo.
All we have to do is change its name. How about calling it the Richard B. Cheney Resort and Rehabilitation Spa?
Elisabeth Hasselbeck continues to defend torture. Ventura sets her straight. She also tries to fudge the facts of KSM giving up all pertinent information after he was waterboarded when the fact is that it was before he was waterboarded.
The interesting part is that she shows she's not stupid. She's overmatched by the facts and Jesse Ventura so she throws the kitchen sink at him including Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, as if they were the architects of "enhanced interrogation." Ventura never flinches and doesn't get sidetracked.
Larry King (@ 1:07): "Alright already with Bush, okay?"
Nice try, Larry, but Ventura is smart enough to realize that you can't judge in a bubble and that making judgments on President Obama 100 days in to his four years without grading it on a curve because of the horrendous hand he was dealt is not a fair assessment. Dismissing what happened for the previous eight years and asking how Obama is doing when we all know that he's still trying to climb out of a hole the size of the Grand Canyon is completely misleading.
I'm also glad Ventura called waterboarding what it is and dispelled the myth that it's different because "you know you're not going to drown." Obviously mistakes can be made, and others experts have attested that it can cause cardiac arrest as well as a suffocating esphogeal collapse hours later.
And calling Dick Cheney a coward and a chickenhawk is always a bonus.
Silly me! Of course being on the high school swim team is exactly like waterboarding! Those long practices were "torturous"! Why didn't I see this to begin with?
As a matter of fact, I do recall seeing pictures of Olympic Gold Medalist Michael Phelps being strapped down onto an inclined board with his feet higher than his head, while his swimming coaches blinded him, stuffed a rag down his throat and poared water onto his face, into his nose and onto the rag which would then seep into his throat as part of his training regimen. And what does he have to show for it? 14 GOLD MEDALS, BABY! (Two bronze medals too, but that's because he wasn't waterboarded enough, that pussy.)
No one remembers those pictures though. All we get is the bong hit photo - fucking LIBERAL MEDIA! Oh, the other difference between waterboarding and the swim team? Waterboarding is torture... and you can always quit the swim team.
Here's Barack Obama's thirty minute infomercial that ran last night in case you were not one of the 29 million viewers who watched it.
I'll be posting reaction to this video from the punditocracy and the wingnut right as I come across it with frequent updates. I already hear Rush Limbaugh is making fun of the families in the video... because they were fat. Try and figure that one out.
UPDATE (9:20pm):
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): "Anybody see the infomercial last night? Thank god for cable! If we had played that at a prison camp it’d have violated the Geneva Convention." Graham joking about torture when the candidate he is backing voted against a ban on waterboarding. Classy.
Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy in your latest column, "The Two Obamas"?
Let's take each issue that you take offense with one at a time, and explain it so that even you can understand.
In your "column", you rail frantically against Senator Obama voting "present" while a member of the Illinois State Senate 130 times according to your count. I won't waste time looking for the actual number because it is irrelevant. Anyone bothering to look for an explanation can easily find one, such as this Republican State House leader coming to Obama's defense.
...Obama's former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama's opponents don't understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.
"To insinuate the 'present' vote means you're indecisive, that you don't have the courage to hold public office, that's a stretch. But, it's good politics," said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party's floor leader.
In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their "present" votes nearly every campaign season. "It's always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote 'present' once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up."
The "present" vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.
"The 'present' vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.
In your next statement, you claim that BarackObama first stood by Rev. Wright and then later "threw [him] under the truck" only when it was politically convenient. Nowhere in your article does it state that he originally stood by him but denounced his inflammatory remarks. Nowhere in your article does it state that because of the controversy that the media perpetuated, he daringly gave a speech considered a third rail in politics, discussing the issue of race and racism in our country that was widely hailed as one of the most important political speeches in the last 40 years.
Only after Rev. Wright continued to fly off the handle, giving a speech at the National Press Club to promote his upcoming book, did Obama finally cut Wright loose; only after another controversial appearance by guest speaker Father Pflegerat Trinity United Church, did Obama decide to leave the church itself not only for his own sake, but to avoid further distraction that it was causing the congregation.
It was a lose-lose-lose situation for Obama. Either he defends Wright and gets lambasted by the right wing, or he denounces Wright's comments which isn't considered good enough by the wingnut pundits, or he disavows him altogether and is accused of throwing him "under the truck." Either he stays with his church and is ridiculed by the likes of you, or he leaves the church is accused of doing it for political convenience.
Next you throw in some stupid line about Obama not being a "workhorse senator" and throwing his duties "under the truck" (always with the truck). Yet you give no examples of what you may be talking about. As for me, I'll refer you to the example above regarding McCain's non GI Bill vote and I'll throw this little tidbit of information your way: Senator John McCain, as of this past May 17th had missed 43 straight votes in the Senate just this year alone. At that point, that equated to missing approximately 50% of the roll calls. Before you try and defend the fact that he's been on the campaign trail, BarackObama and Hillary Clinton had only missed just 6.4 percent and 1.8 percent of votes this year, respectively. What a "workhorse" that John McCain, huh? Perhaps he was napping.
As for town hall meetings? Maybe Obama would accept if he knew that the audience was impartial and not vetted or invited by the McCain campaign.
Fox News:The McCain campaign said it was taking random questions from the audience of about 200 people. But the questions and mood were decidedly favorable, as his jabs at Obama were frequently interrupted by applause.
One questioner praised his military service; another called him a “hero.”
The campaign later issued a statement saying it distributed tickets to “supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, and other independent groups.”
What a maverick that McCain is!
But then, Mr. Brooks, you save the best for last: Accusing BarackObama of flip-flopping and backing out of public financing. Oh no! The evil Obama deciding not to accept any taxpayer money (a "small government" conservative's dream by the way). Weak, David. Weak. Let's slow this down so you can see how ridiculous this argument is.
First, let's talk about what Senator Obama actually did say he would participate in. In his Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, question 1-B asked: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"
So the operative phrase here is "if... your major opponents agree to forgo public financing..." Here is his full answer after checking the "yes" box:
"I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge.If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
You got that, Dave? "Senator McCain has already agreed to accept this fundraising pledge." The only problem is that Senator McCain has been raising and spending unlimited monies in violation of Federal Election Commission laws after opting in for public campaign funds through the primaries (which end with the convention), used that pledge to secure a bank loan, and then opted out of public financing. Something that the Republican Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission calls ILLEGAL.
...McCain's maneuveringseemed to irritate FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican,who wrote a letter to McCain in Februarysaying McCain could only withdraw from public financing if he received the permission of the FEC and answered questions about the loan.
"The Commission made clear that a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission when he executes the Candidate Agreements and Certification," Mason wrote. "The Commission stated that it would withdraw a candidate's certifications upon written request, thus agreeing to rescind the contract, so long as the candidate: 1) had not received Matching Payment Program funds, and 2) had not pledged the certification of Matching Payment Program funds as 'security for private financing.'"
By the way, McCain was asked the same public financing question that Obama answered from the same organization and didn't bother to respond. Perhaps he was napping.
The fact is that McCain is gaming the system - first planning to opt out of public financing during the primaries. Then when fundraising got rough and he was out of cash, on August 10 McCain asked the Federal Election Commission for the authority to receive matching funds, and the FEC said he was eligible for $5.8 million. Although he never collected the money, he secured a $4 million line of credit with the agreement to reapply for federal matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests. The agreement also held as collateral his list of contributors and a pledge by McCain to seek further cash from those donors to pay of the loan.
So cry all you want about Senator Obama opting out of public financing, or in actuality creating his own system of public financing without using one single dollar of taxpayer money. If the roles were reversed, no one would be batting an eye at the advantage of GOP coffers, but since the shoe is on the other foot, all we hear is whining from "pundits" with agendas.
I suppose that's why your columns are op-eds, Mr. Brooks. You may be entitled you your opinion, but you are certainly not entitled to your own facts. *************************
I know the public financing fiasco is convoluted - here is Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman explaining it a lot better than I probably did.
Whenever I hear someone ask about BarackObama's religion or religious beliefs , I always ask, "Why is that important? What difference does it make?"
Would you refuse to vote for someone on the simple point of his or her religion? If the answer is 'yes' then you don't know your history.
Article Six of the US Constitution states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " Our forefathers, religious men all, knew of the consequences of a theocracy and actually wrote a directive in our soon to be 222 year old Constitution to prevent such a thing happening in the United States as it happens in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
The reason I bring this up is because when I hear supposed "Christians" like Cal Thomas not only question someone's Christianity, but whether they are "Christian enough", I shake my head in amazement.
In a column published last week, Cal Thomas took a verbal swing at BarackObama's claim to be a committed Christian. "He can call himself anything he likes," wrote the syndicated columnist, "but there are certain markers among the evangelicals he is courting that one must meet in order to qualify for that label." ..."... [T]here is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement," stated Thomas. "One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in scripture. They are called 'false prophets.'"
Oh really, Mr. Thomas? He has to meet with the approval of evangelicals to "qualify" as a Christian? And which evangelicals would those be? Do you happen to have a list? Perhaps we can start with the more Christian ones and work our way down, seeing as you know who the real Christians are and who are "false prophets."
A quick Google search of "Cal Thomas" reveals a few books he's written, his official website and various articles and appearances he's made on Fox News. His Wikipedia page reveals a very light biography stating that he was a reporter in the 60's and 70's and the Vice President of the Moral Majority from 1980-1985. There is no mention of schooling, whether secular or seminary.
And yet this man seems to know who is more Christian, less Christian or Christian at all. I don't claim to be a religious expert, but I'll defer to someone who commented on Thomas' website in regards to Obama's Christianity:
Posted by radar, June 20, 2008 4:36:41
First, let me say that I am a political moderate; with over 40 years voting, I have probably divided my votes equally between Republicans and Democrats, altho [sic] I have also voted for 3rd party candidates. I agree with Cal that no one should use their Christianity to gain political (or any other) advantage. While Obama may be headed that way, clearly the Republican Party has been doing this for years. I hope and pray that all guilty folks will stop, be they Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, black or white, or whatever. I also am moderate when it comes to my Christianity; my father and both grandfathers were ministers, and I have been in Baptist churches all of my 64 years, and currently serve as Chairman of Deacons in a Southern Baptist Church. Based on my 64 years of study and being taught at my ancestors' tables, I disagree with Cal as to our right to judge another person's Christianity; while we can judge someone's actions, to say someone is not a Christian when they profess to be is not our job. If someone who professes to be a Christian doesn't behave as a Christian, we certainly have a responsibility to confront that individual, but not to denounce him/her as being a non-Christian. I think Cal crosses the line when he writes that Obama is not a Christian.
Truly the Christian answer.
Perhaps it is Cal Thomas for whom we should be reserving the right to confront as "someone who professes to be a Christian but doesn't behave as a Christian." And even so, for the sake of argument, let's listen to those evangelicals Thomas speaks of and see what they have to say about those "certain markers... one must meet in order to qualify for that [Christian] label."
This month, the Illinois senator held a closed-door meeting in Chicago with almost 40 Christian leaders, including evangelical heavyweights such as the Rev. Franklin Graham, publishing magnate Steve Strang and megachurch pastor Bishop T.D. Jakes. ..."I've never seen anything quite like it before," said evangelical author Stephen Mansfield, who wrote "The Faith of George W. Bush" and has a forthcoming book about Obama. "To be running against a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and to be reaching into the Christian community as wisely and knowledgeably as (Obama) is -- understanding their terms and their values -- is just remarkable." Strang wrote in a blog, Obama "won over the loyalties of many. He came across as thoughtful and much more of a 'centrist' than I would haveexpected," Strang wrote, adding that he hopes McCain will host a similar gathering.
It seems that the religious evangelical leaders that met with Senator Obama were impressed by him, much more so than a crackpot like Cal Thomas would have been, with his preconceived ideas and his notion that he can decide who is a Christian and who is not. The fact is that Cal Thomas is a political tool, a pundit hiding in evangelical clothing, casting doubt on those he is told to cast doubt upon. He is a reporter, and a hackish one at that, using lies and smears for his political agenda. Is that how a Christian acts?
And speaking of acting like a Christian, if you're not planning on voting for Obama because of a religious question, that leaves John McCain. And is McCain a Christian? A man who cheated on and divorced his first wife after finding out she had a disfiguring car accident while he was a POW? A man involved in a savings and loan scandal that robbed thousands of their retirement funds and cost the US taxpayer $3.4 billion? A man who was tortured for five and a half years during the Vietnam War and spoke out against torture his entire life in public service until it was politically convenient for him to vote against a ban on waterboarding? Is that the kind of "Christian" man you would vote into the Oval Office?
As the first lines of the Cal Thomas/Obama smear e-mail I received state, "Please read this and take this coming election very seriously. Please pray about how you will vote." And for those of you who do pray, I hope you will pray for the strength to vote for what you believe is right, and not for what you are told to believe is right.
WASHINGTON — The White House says President Bush will veto legislation on Saturday that would have barred the CIA from using waterboarding- a technique that simulates drowning- and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.
..."President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement Friday. "Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world."
Is Congress going to have the balls to do the right thing and override the Farce-in-Chief? Keep watching.
Faced with a vote to ban waterboarding or to acquiesce to President Bush and side with him on torture, Mr. Straight Talk decided to bend over, spread wide for the Republicans and vote against the bill that contains a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that establishes one interrogation standard, requiring the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and banning waterboarding.
The bill still passed 51-45, with every Republican voting against it, save Dick Luger and Chuck Hagel. Holy Joe LIEberman, Independent "Democrat" voted against banning waterboarding as well. The Republicans didn't put up much of a fight in expectation of a Bush veto.
Thank you for playing, Mr. McCain. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Robert Scheer writes a great article questioning the destruction of the CIA tapes.
When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, was it also destroying the truth about 9/11? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day—and the definition of the enemy in this war on terror that George W. Bush launched in response to the tragedy—comes from the CIA’s account of what those prisoners told their torturers. The commission was never allowed to interview the prisoners, or speak with those who did, and was instead forced to rely on what the CIA was willing to relay.
Missouri's Senator Kit Bond is the ranking REPUBLICAN on the Senate intelligence committee... and he thinks waterboarding is like swimming. But he wouldn't use it. Maybe the good Senator can't swim.
ABC News: Daniel Levin, then [2004] acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent [waterboarding] to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.
After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning. Levin then began writing a memo forming the administration's legal position on torture.
...Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general.
From Keith Olbermann:
Study after study for generation after generation, sir, has confirmed that torture gets people to talk, torture gets people to plead, torture gets people to break, but torture does not get them to tell the truth. Of course, Mr. Bush, this isn’t a problem if you don’t care if the terrorist plots they tell you about, are the truth or just something to stop the tormentors from drowning them. If, say, a President simply needed a constant supply of terrorist threats to keep a country scared…
...Now if that’s what this is all about — you tortured not because you’re so stupid you think torture produces confession — but you tortured because you’re smart enough to know it produces really authentic-sounding fiction — well, then you’re going to need all the lawyers you can find because that crime wouldn’t just mean impeachment, would it, sir? That crime would mean George W. Bush is going to prison. ...in the seven years of your nightmare presidency, this whole string of events has been transformed from its beginning as the most neglectful protection ever, of the lives and safety of the American people into the most efficient and cynical exploitation of tragedy for political gain in this country’s history.
Charles Schumer says he will vote in favor of Michael Mukasey's nomination as the next Attorney General... A shocker? Not really. Schumer was uncharacteristically quiet during the qustioning of Mukasey since the waterboarding issue came up. Schumer kept quiet because he actually recommended Mukasey.
"This is an extremely difficult decision," Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement, adding that Mukasey "is not my ideal choice." ...Schumer's announcement followed a private meeting Friday with Mukasey to discuss waterboarding."I deeply oppose it," Schumer said of waterboarding. "Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush, will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding."
So instead of saying he made a mistake and sit there with egg on his face, Schumer will just slink back into the corner of the room... with egg on his face, hopefully never to be heard from again.
Damn you, Chuck. I'll never believe another word you say, ever again.
Diane Feinstein has also decided to back the AG nominee, but that's not a surprise, is it?
Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) effectively thwarted plans by the activist left to use the weekend to mobilize ahead of Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee vote and pressure wayward senators to reject the nominee, activists said.
“It was a surprise attack,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office for the American Civil Liberties Union, which wants the Judiciary Committee to defeat the nomination. “There was a limited opportunity to say much about what Schumer and Feinstein had done because the timing was very cleverly calculated to avoid scrutiny.”
BUSH on Mukasey: “He’s a good man, he’s a fair man, he’s an independent man, and he’s plenty qualified to be the attorney general,” Mr. Bush said at the airport here. “And I strongly urge the United States Senate to confirm this man, so that I can have an attorney general to work with to protect the United States of America from further attack.”
This "plenty qualified man" also said he didn't know what waterboarding was and then when he found out, refused to make a call on determining whether it was considered torture or not until AFTER his confirmation. Well Mike, how about if we call it what it actually is: SIMULATED DROWNING. But to tell the truth, it's not simulated at all. It's real drowning and stopping just short of killing the victim.
As Senator Pat Leahy said, "...no American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture.”
ShareThis
