Re my last post: Bush and Cheney ARE innocent until proven guilty. But, the interesting thing is the argument is less whether they've done it (Cheney has now admitted it), and more whether what they've done constitutes crimes. The idiotocracy thinks torture and warrantless wiretapping are "policy disputes," so they don't care what the Bush Administration actually did.

It seems pretty safe at this stage to say that they've committed crimes. However, it's up to a jury to decide whether they're "guilty."

And because you are so predictable and will ask for "proof", I'll ask you where yours is for the allegation you made above. Quid pro quo is something you should be capable of understanding.

-- Pedinska

I think Shooter should go look up all of his own posts where he screamed and whined and cried about how, despite all the evidence mounting re war crimes, violation of the 4th Amendment and the rest, Bush, Cheney, et al. are innocent until proven guilty.

When it comes to Democrats, however, he can recite crazy, tin-foil hat-level allegations of murder with no sense of irony.

It's made especially hilarious since the only thing he generally seems capable of saying is that Democrats are hypocrites.

I see. People are allowed to think whatever they want. But if they don't think like you do they are stupid and evil. Big of you.

-- wbgonne

Well, if Glenn had said anything of the sort, that would certainly be bad. Good thing he didn't.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm glad you took your toys and huffed out of here.

But should he be PERMITTED to invite Warren? Of course he should.

-- wbgonne

...Are we allowed to express disagreement with his choice? Are we permitted to draw conclusions about Obama based on the choice? Are we permitted to do anything but shut up and accept whatever he does?

...this is what Obama did, and therefore it's right.

-- GlennGreenwald

Don't forget: we should all shut up and stop complaining, because Obama needs to move to the (very right of) center so he can win in 2010 and continue governing from the (very right of) center and telling the left/liberals/progressives to shut up so the Democrats can continue to win elections and govern from the (very right of) center...

It would be funny if it weren't driving me insane.

Now, what were you saying about that?

-- GlennGreenwald

E-man's dig at "GLAAD" is what poker players like to call a "tell." But, you got that already. ;)

Gay marriage is illegal in the US. Does that mean its immoral?

-- DaveL

...And thanks for playing Really Bad Analogies!

Gay marriage isn't a CRIME. Sheesh.

Purposefully obtuse bed wetting babies who don't have the intellectual horsepower to even have an internally consistent morality much less understand what this issue is about, really shouldn't post much here.

-- rrheard

Thank you so much for that extremely apt description.

His posts are so absurd that I'm starting to think DaveL might be pulling our collective leg.

If a nuclear bomb ever went off in Manhattan, there would be no calls for restraint on even torture. Arguments that it isn't effective would be legitimate. The motivation of the torturer matters. They are not all moral equivalents. Some people legitimately believe Bush's motivation was to protect.

-- DaveL

Is anyone else frightened by that? Just me?

Whew. I'm glad that's over. File those dissonant thoughts away as "resolved".

-- Chris Sinnard

The funny thing is that Glenn's post basically assumes that the intention was to "protect" the country. Then he goes on to say he doesn't care. That war crimes are war crimes are war crimes, and the reason for committing them is completely irrelevant.

If someone robs a bank at gunpoint and someone dies, even if he didn't pull the trigger, he's going to get charged with 1st degree felony murder. No one's going to care that he did it because his house was foreclosed upon and his children were going to end up homeless. Yes, his intention was to protect his children, but that doesn't make his actions in the name of protecting his children any less of a crime.

Clearly he is dismissing any attempt to understand the extreme actions of the Bush administration as genuinely believing they were trying to defend our country and then saying even if that were true it wouldn't be legitimate and drawing defending one's nation as a moral equivalent of all tyranny and brutality.

So a reasonable follow up question would be, is there no such thing as self-defense?

-- DaveL

Your question isn't reasonable at all, because it's based on a misstatement of Glenn's point (in other words, a strawman). You might want to go re-read the post.

There's a world of difference between legitimate self-defense and war crimes. The point here is that there is no excuse for war crimes (the other point being that it's narcissistic exceptionalism to support your own country's war crimes and then be outraged when another government commits the same crimes). That's why they are crimes. Not that there is no legitimate reason for a country to engage in self-defense. Of course, if you think that torture, wars of aggression and extraordinary rendition are the same as self-defense, then of course you wouldn't understand Glenn's point.

So is all self-defense exceptionalism?

-- DaveL

Please quote from the post where Glenn said that. I must have missed it.