My brother and his wife are absolutely horrified by cuss words, especially the F bomb, because they are "nice" people and because they are fundy Christians who believe the Bible strictly prohibits profanity. They also won't watch movies with profanity, nor will they watch certain actors because of that actor's bad life style. HOWEVER, they listen to Rush every day. And they support torture and pre-emptive war.

They like Joe S. very much, altho they think he's a bit too critical of Bush.

Cognitive dissonance are not words in their vocabulary.

I still don't quite get what an Executive Order is. If it's more than what color tp to have in the White House bathrooms or how many press peeps are allowed to fly in US1, how is an Executive Order not a law? And isn't making law a constitutional prerogative of the legislative branch?

Where did EO's come from and haven't they been challenged in court? And if not, why not?

9-11 WAS the equivalent to Pearl Harbor (in that we were attacked by a foreign govt).

What foreign govt attacked us on 9/11?

the taliban govt of Afghanistan of which al Qaeda was an integral and fundamental part attacked the US on 9-11.

What are you basing that on?

The problem is that we've had far too little clashing of ideas and far too much consensus. I can't fathom anyone thinking we actually need more consensus in our political class, but there are -- obviously -- plenty of people who crave that.

There has been NO clashing of ideas. There are simply smears and ad hominem attacks. But I also think that the smears and attacks are what are considered partisan -- so bipartisanship is now considered not smearing the other guy. The concept of debating ideas is so far gone that no one even imagines it anymore.

Hope Glenn doesn't mind -- via Firedoglake, Accountability Now PAC has a pledge to work to defeat Lieberman in 2012

http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/18/take-the-pledge-i-will-work-to-defeat-joe-lieberman-in-2012/

why is it that nobody ever considered treating these guys, and other al-Qaeda types, as common criminals, and the struggle against them as a simple law enforcement battle, sort of like dealing with the mob? That strikes me as the correct posture. There is an international aspect to terrorism, of course, but there are international criminal organizations too.

John Kerry proposed this when he was running in 2004. He was laughed off the stage.

Of course, the reason he was laughed off the stage was because the idea was sensible. Sensible isn't fun and macho, and doesn't involve torture and blowing things up. Ergo, everyone hated it.

What possible rationale

do they have for keeping him in the cell with the lights on, etc., after it has become clear he is innocent? Is there some evidence that puts his innocence in doubt so that there are hoping for some last minute confession to justify their torture of him? Are they simply insane? I cannot comprehend this situation at all. One tries not to demonize one's opponents, but in this case it is hard not to simply say the Bush administration is simply evil. How would they defend this? Why on earth do they continue to torture him?

That's a question that we'll probably never have answered definitely. My bet would be, "because they can".

I saw a mention of that at NRO this morning -- the inimitable KLo said "For shame" to the judge who admitted yelling "tyrant" at Mukasey. But there's no shame in supporting torture and abrogating the GC, apparently.

Up truly has become down and I feel like I'm falling off the planet.

Alas, I fear the result would be perls before swine.

Heh.

It's not illegal if the President does it, especially during war. It's not bad if Americans do it (unless they are the wrong kind of Americans), and usually isn't bad if Israeli's do it. Everyone else = wrong/bad/terrorist/criminal, etc.

Pretty straightforward world view. Just unfortunate if you happen to be born in the wrong country -- but then, God prolly doesn't like you much if you weren't born American.

Seems like most Americans have developed a mental illness wherein they are unable to empathize. A nation of sociopaths.

Merry Christmas to all who celebrate, and peace on earth to all, regardless. The nice middle-of-the-road Presbyterian Church down the street has a big sign up that says "God Bless Everyone -- No Exceptions!" I'm going with that.

Para starting "In fairness to Calderone" -- should be "renowned" instead of "renown".

Israel wants safety and an assured existence as a Jewish state -- Hamas wants the destruction of Israel (but cares not about the safety or well being of it's citizens). See how their goals are irreconcilable?

How is it that you know so completely Hamas's goals? Do you speak Arabic? Have you lived in Gaza? Visited? Spoken to any Hamas reps? Whence the source of this amazing knowledge?

The JBS has been against the war in Iraq from the outset, as well as against the Patriot Act, torture, etc., etc. They may be wacky about some stuff, but they've been very righteous on these issues. Hard to imagine a world in which Jane Hamsher agrees with John Birch Soc., but there you have it -- strange bedfellows, indeed.

I'd love to see a list of all of the people on the right and in the center that have written pieces critical of the Bush war criminals. I'm familiar with Bruce Fein, the Cato Institute and a few others but I'd really like to see more of them.

You'll find many different voices from the right and the left at antiwar.com.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that Jane Hamsher had posted about the Birch Society. I just find it interesting that someone as "left" as Jane has common ground with a group as "right" as the JBS.