wrote:

Good. We're getting somewhere.

KSM is a matter of war-fighting and not law enforcement.

KSM, an illegal combatant, is also outside the Geneva Convention.

Is it warfare if all of the combatants on one side are illegal?

Which combatants on KSM's side were legal?

Are you implying that the US military or CIA can capture anyone it wants, and no rules apply for those who are not part of the military of a recognized country?

Does this mean that the discretion for torture as discussed here is essentially the same as everything else?

wrote:

The left has so exagerrated (sic) the "crimes" of the Bush administration that......

Granted, Obama will not do everything one would like, even if one is not so far left. But unless he continues to make torture an official policy and imitates the mind-numbing incompetence of the B43 admin., your prediction is likely to be about as good as Ben Stein's on the financial crisis.

wrote:

You don't bite the hand that feeds you

Many journalists are like dogs who must, if they want to stay fed, treat their masters with respect and even adoration.

...............

You missed the point again. It is the media managership that enables this behavior. If all the bosses said to the reporters: "Do your job!", the government would have to accept tougher questions. It needs the publicity. "Meet the Press" could be good for something.

It is the interests of the media ownership that count.

wrote:

And the notion that the journalists don't ask hard questions because (to quote a line from Plan 9 from Outer Space "the top brass is muzzling me!"", I don't think so. The media owners would love for one of their own to ask a question that resulted in an explosive answer--it means more money for them.

You missed the point yet again. The media owner does not want that question asked because it could negatively affect his real money-making and power-grabbing enterprises.

I think he should have said "and all faiths, including non-believers", but heh, I have heard a lot worse.

wrote:

In deference to a number of people on this board whom I respect, I understated the extent of my contempt for the self-absorbed, 60s/70s-obsessed folks who have held sway over the U.S. these past 16 years. Their obsessions have been a blight upon us all for nearly 2 decades now.

If you really think 60/70s obsession had any significant role in the recent US dark age, you are missing how those folks got elected and how they exercised power. And lumping the Bush and Clinton years together as the same thing explains nothing and insults even the worst of those who worked with Bill.

I thought it was a good speech. I have been more moved my some of Obama's earlier speeches, which surprised me and gave me a tremendous respect for him. What he does now is more important than any speech. I do not expect him to do everything I want, but there are some things he has to do if he is to succeed in turning around the country.

wrote:

Ummmm ... non-believers (i.e., atheists) are not of any "faith". That's kind of the whole point to "a-" (without, or lacking) + "theism" (religious belief).

I agree with Sc. No need to be certain about things you do not and cannot know. And I add: avoid extreme atheism as you avoid any other faith.

Mona wrote:

(Some termed "strong atheists" do affirmatively assert that there is no god(s). But even for them, it is because they propose the evidence is overwhelming supportive of that proposition. But I myself simply lack a belief.)

The strong atheist proposes to address the overwhelming evidence alone, but often makes arguments not strictly supported by the evidence. That is an indication of belief. And it is entirely human and almost impossible to avoid when religion is the topic.

Messiah? That seems to fit best, given the views of those who use the term, and their attitude towards those who do not hate Obama.

but did write this:

Our nation's racial history has meant that all of us have been diminished by our failure to tap the country's entire talent pool, not just white talent.

I must say there still are not nearly enough intelligent creative women in many jobs, especially science and engineering. And as for intelligent creative black women, science has about 1% of what we need. Recruit early; let's not forget about the White House!

..those who cannot be convicted of terrorism related charges (many of whom are held despite a lack of evidence) is more or less terrorism? That NYT article S. referred to did not do a very good job of exploring that point. I am not even convinced that the "terrorist" in question is even the same one that was released.

From the NYT: “They’re one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis.

Why not some real information from an identifiable person if this is true? And the confirming information, matching his prison number, is not convincing either.

wrote:

You even condemned some of the convictions that have been obtained. A ballsy and honorable stand.

Well, if it "ballsy and honorable" to stand up for the rule of law then there are a bunch of folks here who resemble John Wayne's characters more than they thought.

I thought demanding the rule of law was what ordinary folk did. Something about a Constitution.

When does a fetus become a baby? Surely it cannot be defined as late as birth. So, how do you draw the line? And there must be a line. At some point abortion is killing a baby.

One day, the Bush era will be as embarrasing and shameful as the era of Senator Joe McCarthy.

What? Let's get a proper historical perspective on this. Not even close. The Bush administration will be regarded as far more shameful Joe Mc.