Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
mizbinkley
Published Letters: 870 Editor's Choice: 116
Sounds like we read the same Slate article: http://www.slate.com/id/2175899/
Further details at: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/44/17435 and http://www.livescience.com/health/071015-gossip-power.html
Or the Clinton campaign is just taking advantage of the situation. They're nothing if not opportunistic.
I'm getting really sick of Perino's (and the rest of the Bush Administration's) use of the word "hypothetical."
White House Press Briefing 10/30/07: Reporter: Does the President think he has the right to do it [attack or bomb Iran] without going through Congress?
10/24/07: Reporter: Is that number -- if that number [the CBO estimate for the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan at $2.4 trillion] turned out to be somewhere close to accurate, do you think that would be a reasonable amount of money to be spending on the war --
9/12/07: Reporter: If [conditions on the ground don't continue to move in the right] is the President prepared to extend deployments beyond 15 months?
9/11/07: Reporter: This is not a hypothetical question. Does the President feel that he has the right to attack any country without going first to Congress?
6/5/07: Reporter, Dana, if the [Scooter Libby] appeals process is still going on, on January 20, 2009, will the President continue to not get involved?
Apparently, “hypothetical” means, “That’s a question that’ll come back to bite me in the ass if I answer it so I’m not gonna. Nanny-nanny, boo-boo.”
-briefings from whitehouse.gov
I can't even seem to find an instance of Bush using the term "water-boarding." Is it the technique so repugnant we dare not speak its name?
I don't know how I missed this, but the Washington Post reported on it about two weeks ago. This is Bush's exclusive interview with Bill O'Reilly (yes, that Bill O'Reilly):
O'REILLY: Is water boarding torture?BUSH: I don't want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don't torture. We — I've said all along to the American people we won't torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.
O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?
BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.
O'Reilly doesn't push further, but kudos for asking (I know, I'm as shocked as the next person).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221975,00.html
Apparently Bush doesn't want our enemies to adapt to the technique of waterboarding because it would make waterboarding less effective. Not that we waterboard. And not that we don't. But we certainly don't torture, whatever we decide that means.
George W. Bush, the "W" is for waterboarding*
*I wish I'd made that up myself.
Well, he is speaking to a crowd at the Heritage Foundation. That crowd would get in line for the chance to lick Bush's [BLANK].
At that same meeting, Bush opens with the following quip about Heritage president Ed Feulner: "I congratulate you on your 30th anniversary as President -- (laughter.) No such thing as term limits here. (Laughter.)" Gotta love Bush's jokes about wanting to be Dictator for Life!
Anyhoo, perhaps it's Bush who oughta start listening to bin Laden's intentions. He's the one who opted for a leisurely vacation upon receiving the August 6, 2001 PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
That'd be 78%. Although 88% would probably be right in BushMath!
I'm a little more sympathetic to Chuck Schumer.
Schumer has held a high opinion of Mukasey for a long time. He didn't agree with Mukasey on everything but thought him to be a man of principle who'd uphold the rule of law in the face of partisan politics.
But now Mukasey is equivocating over something as "repugnant" (Mukasey's own word) as waterboarding for what seem to be partisan reasons. How can Mukasey be trusted now?
I think Schumer's a little heartbroken. He's probably curled up in the fetal position somewhere with a pint of Ben & Jerry's. Does he dare trust Mukasey again? How can he risk his heart?
"Did he take the rib out of Adam? Did he make it like -- I have no reason to believe he didn't."
Uh, how about the reason that it's biologically impossible and defies the laws of nature? There are lots of reason not to believe it. There's no reason to believe it. Except for literal readings of the Bible and faith.
Most people believe in a creator God (I'm not going to debate the merits of that), but most people don't take every word of the Bible literally.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
