Actually, conservatives will deny that torture is immoral. For conservatives, morality has to do with sex — period. Lying, stealing, cheating, torture, and so on, have nothing to do with morality as long as there is no sex involved.

Disagree slightly. To modern day Republicans, the ultimate litmus test for morality is: Do you hate liberals?

If you hate liberals, you are "cleansed."

Of course, the definition of "liberals" is open to interpretation, since the #1 priority in this equation is the ability to recognize & hate "the other."

I can't see Republicans hating sex since the current Republican congress-people embrace more weird sex fetishes than a post-concert Marilyn Manson party.
— xititjur99

And I'll disagree back (in a friendly, bantering sort of way, of course).

Hating liberals doesn't have anything to do with morality for these people — it is simply how they recognize their own. There are those who will tell you that hatred in itself is immoral, but they won't be conservatives.

I didn't say that conservatives hate sex; they get as much of all kinds as anyone else. What I said was that their concept of morality is entirely bound up with sex (I hope there's no pun in there). How many conservatives did you see denouncing Abramoff or Duke Cunningham as immoral? To them corruption isn't a moral issue. If people like Abramoff and Cunningham had a character flaw it was getting caught, not doing what they were doing so successfully. No, conservatives simply don't use the word "morality" unless sex is involved.

Sounds like a resounding victory for the terrorists to me.
— xititjur99

And you didn't even get around to the bit about bankrupting the USA financially as well as morally. <http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/>

Actually, conservatives will deny that torture is immoral. For conservatives, morality has to do with sex — period. Lying, stealing, cheating, torture, and so on, have nothing to do with morality as long as there is no sex involved.

I think Presstitutes would be more appropriate. After all, prostitution (of sexual favors) is an old and honored profession.

Is there a point at which there is some means of accountability for what these people say? I mean if Dan Rather had just said that anonymous sources had confirmed that Bush skipped out of the last two years of his service in the TANG, he'd still be anchoring CBS news.

No. It would take 66 (or, actually, 67) votes to convict Bybee and remove him from office

If you're going to pick nits, the number of votes required for conviction depends on the number of Senators present when the vote is taken:

Article I, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

So long as Minnesota has only one Senator accredited to the Senate, the maximum number of votes required for conviction, assuming all members present, is 66.

Since Coleman looks unlikely to concede any time soon, this situation could conceivably continue through a Bybee impeachment trial.

"Torture was not carried out to satisfy the sadistic cravings of Bush, Cheney, the CIA interrogators, or anyone else involved. The fact is, I fully grant these officials and intelligence experts the benefit of their beliefs that what they were doing was protecting the country."

Interestingly enough, many Germans felt much the same way about exterminating Jews — that by exterminating Jews what they were doing was protecting the country.

Perhaps someday there will be a book, Bush's Willing Torturers, along the lines of Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners.

Patriotism : Scoundrels : Refuge : Last

Oh, did Bush never specifically claim he didn't have sex with Jeff Gannon? Guess he's in the clear. He *did* specifically claim that if he had been allowed to marry a man he wouldn't be married to Laura.

I thought that Rove was Gannon's boyfriend. Did they have a three-way, or did George just like to watch? Anyway, homosex doesn't count the same as heterosex. After all, A. T. Great was bi-, so where's the harm.

He did lie about popping a cold one and watching Sunday baseball. Does that count?

Not unless the cold one he popped was female — no sex, no foul.

Alternate (often propounded): Under American Law, the President cannot break the law.

At least this defense is a non-starter. If this were true, there would be no need for Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Of course, it has been conclusively demonstrated that the President can only break the law by lying about consensual sex. Torture, illegal wiretaps, wars of aggression, lying to Congress, robbing the country blind, and so on, not so much if sex isn't involved.