No problem with me on how we treated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Of course you don't.

KSM was real Al Quada, a known organizational leader. He is an exception; if anyone on earth had knowledge of follow-up attacks after 9/11 it was KSM.

Of course he did.

So a few threats to kill his children is fine with me. Tell him you'll eat their liver with fava beans if it would save lives. Tell him anything to get the info, imo.

You'd willingly threaten children? Would you be willing to carry out that threat, should the parent continue to prove "difficult"?

What does that make you then?

Therein lies the problem. Go to those extremes, and the subject will literally say anything. He'll invent nonsense out of the ether, just to get you to stop.

You've stopped getting usable, actionable intelligence - which was the original point - and become what you were fighting against.

But then, I suspect you're the sort who thinks "Grand Theft Auto" is a fun time; especially the "Hot Coffee" mod.

This is it? These are the things that we are supposed to feel ashamed of?

If you had an ounce of empathy or humanity, yes.

Looks like these CIA people and the people that ordered them exercised extrordinary restraint in their interrogations of people responsible for the greatest attack on USA soil. They also stopped future attacks.

They did not, and there's no evidence they stopped anything from happening.

I'm proud of them and proud to suppoet them.

Then that say's a great deal about your morals, none of it good, worthy, or admirable.

I've no idea what "suppoet" means, unless you're inventing a new word. Or are you simply in need of a dictionary?

You do an injury to Beavis and Butthead. At least they knew when they needed TP for their bungholes.

I believe it was the mad prophet 'Cornholio' who made that brilliant diagnosis, PI.

As for injury to those two pop icons, I doubt I could do any worse than their years of "Frog Baseball", Mr. Buzz-cut, and Hope High School could do them.

Let's hope, for the sake of the Western world, that Greenwald is just the leftie slogan spewer he seems to be.

I decline to treat this as a serious sentiment, as it would be proof positive that stupidity on the order of "Beavis and Butt-head" is genetically possible in modern humans. The only sane response to such a discovery is to despair for the species, something I likewise decline to do.

So, which is it? Are you making a joke, being ironic, or what?

To whit: if President Obama has lost the trust of progressives and the public, can he get it back?

More to the point, what will it take for him to regain that trust?

I haven't read through the 300+ comments thus far, so apologies if someone's already made this point.

I have no argument that President Obama has lost the easy trust of his key supporters and, more broadly, a good segment of the public. The polling shows this quite clearly and shouldn't surprise anyone.

But going unasked is whether this translates into a corresponding rise in support for the Republicans and their own (presently nonexistent) plans? Again, the polling is clear in a resounding "no".

This makes for an interesting policy dynamic where neither major party is seeing an abundance of support for their initiatives.

yes, the leftist losers were wrong to oppose Bush, because he was working on something important. Trying to make the President look bad and stop him from achieving these important goals is essentially treason.

Unless one makes the argument, with both the law and precedent on one's side, that the President himself is engaged in actions that constitute treason. In which case, it is the American public's responsibility to both stop the man and his Administration before the latter goes too far.

As to what should have been done differently, its quite simple: George W Bush should have conceded the election to Vice President Al Gore back in late November, 2000. It was clear by that point that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost the popular vote, and with it any hope of true legitimacy. The SCOTUS majority ruling in 'Bush v. Gore' only cemented the reality that the Republican ticket 'won' nothing, and thus would leave a cloud hanging over it for the remainder of its term.

But that presupposes the Republican ticket had the country's interest at heart, never mind the public's good will. Indeed, had 9/11 not occurred, its good odds the do-nothing/know-even-less 43rd POTUS and his unpleasant VP wouldn't have seen reelection.

I wonder if its occurred to journalists that by dismissing those who speak the clear-eyed truth, all they're left with is are the ones who either outright lie or those who believe those liars.

The former seem concentrated amongst the GOP caucus and its fellow travellers, while the latter are happily brandishing their guns at town hall meetings.

Neither group really represents a trustworthy source of information or positive activity. Kinda like the journalists themselves, when you think about it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

The short version: the Senate's bill might be split into to two pieces, each approved through different channels.

The noncontroversial stuff - coverage expansion, etc. - would go through the regular approval process. It could still be filibusted, but the GOP likely be going it alone there.

The more contentious stuff - the public option, financing provisions, etc. - would be voted on through reconcilliation as it all affect the budget and finances.

The two pieces are then 'merged' in Conference Committee with the House's final bill and vola: genuine health care reform.

I've no idea if it'll happen or not, or how much credence to give this account. Senator Reid doesn't exactly inspire confidence here, but you never know.