Fact: Most conservatives consider themselves Christians.

Fact: Many conservatives are OK with the torture of terrorists.

Anyone see the problem here?

Glenn,

First, you wrote:

[Clinton] said that the U.S. would attack Iran -- "obliterate" them -- if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. That's a stupid thing to say -- and stupid formulation -- but I didn't hear Obama object to it, did you?

Then, I wrote:

Yes. Actually Obama did object to Clinton's threat to "obliterate" Iran if that country's government attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.

Then you wrote:

Yes, he objected to the semantic expression of the policy, but not the policy itself.

Personally, I'd rather candidates say explicitly what they would intend to do. I think it's better to know in advance exactly what they're thinking. That applies to Obama's willingness to use military force inside Pakistan as well as to Clinton and Obama's response plans if Iran and Israel went to war.

---

So Clinton stated "explicitly" and "exactly" what she intended to do (i.e. "obliterate" Iran) and you criticized that as a stupid thing to say - and a stupid formulation. So in order to satisfy you Glenn, Clinton and Obama would seem to have to formulate a "semantic expression" of an "obliteration" policy that is "explicit" and "exact" but not said or formulated in a "stupid" way. That's a tall order!

Obviously, the issue is not just the policy, but also the "semantic expression of the policy" since both could have profound consequences on our international relations. Words matter. Clinton chose "tough talk" over a reasoned response and has furthered our slide into militarism. Such behavior should be highlighted and condemned, not minimized and obfuscated.

HornetDriver usually just buzzes by so I will speak for him and his logic. If the other side refuses to listen and is just wasting your time, you have no other choice, Christian or not, to force them, through imaginative interrogation techniques, to not only listen, but make them tell you the "truth" no matter the impact on their family, friends and community. After all, you know the one true God and righteousness is on your side. The others, they are damned to hell, unless they want to become true believers.

There are Christians who have a true moral compass, who don't think like this, but too many who do. Probably quite a few fighter jocks as well.

This so called "war-hero-man-of principle" folded like A CHEAP TENT in the face of the Bush Torture Presidency. The one issue that he could have credibility on he dismissed in favor of satisfying the lunatic fringe of his party. He is a lying hack if he says for one minute that he opposes torture. When it came time to cast the crucial vote against Bush on this, he folded. The man is a doddering old fool who would sell his mother to be president.

McCain is unfit to serve.

... I love the smell of JP-5 in the morning! It smells like ... victory!

On a lighter note, we "negotiated" with Saddam for 12 years. He jerked us and the UN around, defied one UN resolution after another.

Kim-Moonbat-Il in North Korea jerked around Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, made all sorts of promises, and still built nukes.

President I'm-a-Moonbat of Iran has jerked around the EU for something like 5 or 6 years and just boasted that they're adding something like 3,000 more centrifuges to their "peaceful" nuke program.

And Yasser Arafat jerked around Bill Clinton and didn't keep a single promise he made at Camp David. Not one!

So tell me, how well does the whole "negotiating" think work?

is when "think" only appears as a typo.

I don't have any particular love for McCain (I actually don't have any love for him at all), but the "wet start" theory is pure BS and shouldn't be brought up at all. If you look at video of the fire, McCain's plane was positioned on the edge of the flight deck with nose pointing inward. In other words, his engine was pointing out to sea. Even if he had wet-started, the flame would have just gone out towards the water, nowhere near the plane that shot off the rocket.

And to the original "wet start" poster here, your account comes from an anti-semitic website that dislikes McCain for his support of the "Jewish Mafia", whatever the hell that means. I wonder if you knew that or not, but either way, check your sources.

I find it ironic that in response to an article criticizing McCain for hypocrisy on torture, a bunch of people who probably howled in protest over the swift-boating of John Kerry (and rightfully so) are lamenting that the media won't do the same to McCain.

in fact, fundamentally, torture cannot be made legal. And the Convention Against Torture, to which the US is signatory, prohibits even the attempt to make torture legal.

But so long as those facts are ignored by virtually all commentators on this issue, the false appearance of legality will continue to be defended, and discussed, and masticated, as if the first and last word on the issue.

Exactly as happened with the lawless Bush v. ; the Constitution gives excluive authority to resolve election disputes to Congress. The courts, -- especially the unelected SC -- have no legal role in the issue, except to hold as they always had before that atrocity: "This is a non-justiciable political question -- take it to the legislature."

So come on, Glenn: deal with the fundamentals, instead of regurgitating only the surface hypocrisy and deceit.

And congratulations: The "NY TImes" reported on its fron fpage, on Friday or Saturday that the Pentagon is suspending the briefing of the "military analysts" who then regurgitate that propaganda in the media pending investigation.

Methinks they knew all along that it is illegal for our gov't to propagandize -- to deliberately misinform -- We the people.

"might?"

"that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law."

"Might?"

The administration can use torture when it might thwart terrorist attacks.

"Might?"

"Might" be prohibited?

"Might" stop attacks?

"MIGHT???"

-- The Small Town Hick Sunday, April 27, 2008 08:48 AM"

Yes: "Might".

As in "Might makes right," rather than "Might MIGHT make right." It's the same view held by such as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and the evil, evil, evil, Evil Torturer-in-Chief Saddam Hussein.