Without getting into the ton of other issues, I have to admit I'm baffled at why Florida Dems are angry at the DNC and Dean, rather than at their local Dem. party who knowingly broke the rules after numerous warnings?

Then again perhaps I answered my own question when I put the word

'Florida' in it.

I mean, is this acurate?:

DNC. Don't break the rules.

FLA. We want to break the rules

DNC. If you break the rules there will be consequences.

FLA. We broke the rules.

DNC. CONSEQUENCES

FLA. WHAAAA! Why are we being punished? We're angry at DNC!

You think Bush is going to appoint an AG that MIGHT cause him grief?

If Bush is smart (or more likely gets smart advice) he'll leave the DOJ a shambles til he's out of town.

If waterboarding is defined as torture by the Geneva convention and we are bound by the Geneva Convention, why is its legality even in question? I understand the President's position is that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to him under the circumstances he has fortuitously defined for himself, but that doesn't negate the fact that according to U.S. law, it is illegal.

The Democrats on the committee have missed the point. The issue isn't whether waterboarding is legal or not (it is not), the issue is whether the President is bound by the law. That should be the question the Judge is being asked: Is the President bound to follow U.S. law?

Of course if the good Judge is unwilling to answer the question, after watching this video, I think I know how the Democrats on the committee could get it out of him for 1000 dollars. 800 if they haggle.

If you are willing to embrace un-American techniques out of fear of a terrorist attack, then by definition you have allowed the terrorists to win.

Let me clarify: You've let the terrorists win because you are cowards.

"What if we could have tortured one individual and uncovered the 9/11 plot?"

I believe that were an individual agent to come across a situation where as you describe he knew in advance that 9/11 was going to happen and that someone in his custody had some pertinent information that could avert the disaster from occurring then I'd expect that individual to act as his conscience dictates with full acknowledgment that he is responsible for the consequences of his actions, whatever they may be. However that is not the issue. We're not discussing what someone may do in the heat of the moment and to bring it up as somehow relevant is misleading. The issue here is policy. Governmental policy. A government whose actions are all carried out in our names. A government that claims it can make those decisions in the name of nation security, yet also refuses to justify those decisions ironically in the name of national security.

This is not about whether torture is effective. Its about if as Americans, we allow our government to use torture while also not subjecting it to any significant oversight, we're losing a lot more than 3000 lives. We'd be losing all of America.

What happened to "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?" All those who support torture to save lives are cowards who've handed the terrorists their victory. Think about it. Bin Laden can look at his followers and say, "Due to our attack, the shining beacon of liberty, justice and freedom in the world, America, is now torturing people and is now detaining people without charges indefinitely."

Defending your country is a lot more than defending invisible lines on a map. Its about defending what makes you a country. Our values and beliefs.

As a smartass I recognize one at work. Cheney said this just to tweak the left.

If you're using force or pain to get information from a prisoner, thats torture. Doesn't matter if it a little or a lot. We shouldn't be slapping people or blasting heavy metal at them all day and night. Its not about who they are, its about who we are. Are we civilized or are we bastards? That is a rhetorical question, no need to answer.

And for the "ticking time bomb" people I have one thing to say to you: You are cowards.

Not sure about this. Opponents say Kyl-Lieb gives Bush what he wants. Clinton says it doesn't, it just allows sanctions against the Iranian army. (right off the bat I'm suspicious because they've targeted the military of a sovereign nation rather than the sovereign nation).

Anyway here is what I'm thinking. Doesn't the authorization Bush used for Iraq cover any terrorists anywhere and by declaring the Iranian army terrorists doesn't it give a weasel like Bush/Cheney all the 'authorization' they need to attack Iran?

Am I wrong about that? Haven't heard it specifically discussed but I thought that is what the 'angle' of Kyl-Lieber was all about.

Simply because long after Bush jr. left the nest, Bush Sr. used his power and influence to prop up his son and shield him from the consequences of his failures.

Responsible because that kind of behavior is irresponsible for a normal parent but for a parent to groom a child for a performance on the world stage and yet do all you can to not just protect him from failure but to cover up the failures he has is just horrendous.

Yes, Bush Sr. is culpable. He should weep.