The argument is withhold the propaganda possibilities offered to Iraqi insurgents of the crimes of the Bush/Cheney years, which have already been so damaging. Obama's goal is to mitigate their continued damage, and I see merit in this point.

-- WinSmith

To be fair, you have a point. But I would suggest that there is also a counterpoint- that to do so paints the CURRRENT administration as complicit in the torture, by failing to investigate and punish it. Does this not also cause damage to our reputation, discredit our legitimacy as honest brokers, and inflame insurgents? Your approach would essentially formalize the status quo in terms of how we are perceived, and it ain't pretty...

If the Beltway was pushing for vigorous investigations of the Bush tortuure policy, and saying that the picture were inflammatory AND could prejudice legal proceedings, I might agree. But the simplest explanantion is not the protection of the troops, but the covering of Beltway ass..

BTW- from my perception, it really seems that you always are looking for a way, any way at all, to disagree with Glenn. You do it well, but your bias has become obvious. The worst part is that when you make legitimate points (which you do) they can be devalued because you often work so hard to somehow make Glenn be wrong. I recognize the process because I see a lot of "Independent" medical exams where a hired gun is trying to make a point, and distorts the facts to do so. Trust me, you don't want that reputation!

Peace

you were born in the wrong millenium. You should be defending your dissertation in the courtyard of the University, against any and all comers, as 'twas done long ago. You'd be brilliant at it. It's a sincere compliment. Honest. I disagree with you on some things, but your can truly spin out the arguments!

BTW, after my committee finished grilling me at my defence, they insisted on taking me out for drinks :-)... Of course, my dissertation had both psychological and physiological data, from, like, real human beings with real medical diseases and stuff...Statistical significance too! Sometimes I re-read it to remember that I was smart once...(actually I published a buncha stuff since then, but that's another story...)

Will you please block Gay Wide (questionably) Male? The only reason this thread has reached 1000 posts is that he has 400 of them- every one of them hatefilled, psychotic spew (x3). I wouldn't see him as a cash patient, and I certainly don't think he contributes anything here- I think he has definitely pegged the "0" on a rationality scale of 0 to 100...

There have been a few interesting posts from rational people on both sides of the debate, but mostly...do you need the hits THAT badly?

Wow.

Q.E.D.

I was going to post something along the lines of what you wrote- a dispassionate, logical analysis of the 2 sides of the argument- but it's been done. Brilliantly. Well done, my friend.

LoriVance-

In the spirit of this thread: I accept that you are a good person, that you love life and children, and that you BELIEVE that abortion is wrong. You have the right to make the choice to not have one. But you said you would “prove scientifically” that a fetus was a person. With all due respect, you obviously haven’t a clue what “science” or “proof” means. You also said that Scott Roeder prevented society from bringing George Tiller to justice-uhmm, he WAS investigated, and charged, and tried (In Kansas of all places) - and found innocent. You BELIEVE he is guilty, therefore he is? I wonder if you are as skilled a prosecutor as you are a scientist…

OK, sorry. But the point is, you are being a poster child for non-critical thinking- “I believe it, so I KNOW it is true”. You are simply incapable of looking at the issue from any other viewpoint but your own (which, at a wild guess is part and parcel of your religious worldview- I’ll bet $10 that you are “saved” and only those like you are going to heaven, right?) You are a perfect example of polarized and polarizing thinking- take one position and deny the other side has any legitimacy at all. I’m pro-choice, yet I am troubled by abortion. I’d be happier if it was a non-issue, that all pregnancies were planned and wanted. Where do you stand on rational, data-based sex education and availability of contraception? I can agree with parts of your position, but you reject mine. I know it is complex, but you believe it to be simple. Remember H.L. Mencken: “For every complicated problem, there is a simple solution. Unfortunately, it’s always the wrong one”.

Peace out