Gee, thank for the daily Bill Clinton puff piece. Now I'm set for the rest of the day.

This is not an issue with the republicans. They feel they have every right to torture for what ever reason they want because "their" cause is always worth it. They would torture the paperboy if he couldn't hit the front porch.

I disagree with Bill R. Our current administration believes the ends justify the means. A just outcome is a validation for whatever means are necessary to achieve the desired end results. In other words, torture and war are appropriate when it raises the price of a gallon of oil. Strong friends and those who put you in office make policy.

Mr. B.G. OilNGas

Stifle yourself, Bill R.

Gee, I agree with the Slickmeister on something. Sorry, folks, if it came down to that torturing someone might prevent a bomb, nuclear bomb or any kind of device that could kill thousands of Americans, I'll do the torture to save lives. I know most of those on the Left would gladly sacrice the lives of thousands of people in order to treat the head-chopping terrorist to cookies and crumpets, but I'll side with the innocent people first.
If that makes me a bad guy, then so be it.

If Hillary disagrees with torturing terrorists that want to detonated weapons on US soil, why should she have the oppurtunity to torture citizens with taxes, gun-conrol, healthcare, gay rights, anti-christian agenda and other issues for four years?

Jack Bauer deserved to be tortured when the Chinese government kidnapped him. Sorry Loons that is the price you pay for freedom. Lefty Loons truly the worst mankind has to offer.

From "The Untouchables":

Malone: So you said you want to get Capone. What are you prepared to do?

Ness: Everything within the law.

Malone: And THEN, what are you prepard to do?

It's not so much about what the Bush administration is "prepared to do". It's just that we all know they don't care too much about staying "within the law".

Nice post Nicholas - talk about apples and oranges.

There is a difference between torturing someone who knows information on a bomb that is about to be set off, and torturing someone 6 months to a year later to get information. In those situations, most studies have shown that the prisoner will say anything not to be tortured, including telling you what you want to hear instead of what the truth is. How many Iraqis are in prison now because of someone giving their name just to not be tortured or arrested? How many were set free from Guantanamo because of this?

"This is not an issue with the republicans. They feel they have every right to torture for what ever reason they want because "their" cause is always worth it. They would torture the paperboy if he couldn't hit the front porch."

How your enemy attacks you, shows what they are most afraid of...

Liberals always promote "their cause"...and try to silence their detractors.

I know what the Republican agenda is, what is the Democrat agenda? Lies, half-truth, slander....how about solutions? ...hmmm...waiting....thought so...

I've asked this before, and NONE of the Republican backers on this board have had the guts to answer it:

"Who Would Jesus Waterboard?"

BC, bringing Jesus into it is ridiculous. While Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, he also didn't believe that people should die and not defend themselves.

Let me ask you this question, BC. Your wife is kidnapped and they are threatening to cut off her head. Your neighbor has information that could save her. What would you do?

LOL @ the neocons quoting movies to justify their cowboy position regarding torture, but I suppose that's what validates your stance on the death penalty as well. Yet you refer to yourselves as the pro-life people, promoting a "culture of life."

Ride em, cowboy!

While Muhammad taught us to love our neighbors, he also didn't believe that people should die and not defend themselves.

Your son is kidnapped and they are threatening to cut off his head for information. What would you do?

.....

How do you know that person has information? What standard of proof do you meet before you resort to any tactics? What hearsay? Gut instinct? What standard of proof is met inorder to allow any one human being to do anything to another? Is this standard of proof one sided? How is that fair? Because you say so? What guarantee do you get that the information you get is being given freely and not forced under duress? How reliable is information taken under duress ?

Is it worth it in the end. No. If the Us has a standing policy to never cooperate with terrorists even in the case of kidnappers (like we saw in Afghanistan) then I don't know why that information is useful. I, also, don't see why you would think that those who are taken in as terrorists would be willing to cooperate under those circumstances. The are loosing everything to begin with and have nothing to gain.

Billy Rubin, what "neocon" are you referring to kin regard to quoting movies. Seems to me the only movie quoting here is from Steve34, who is not a neocon but against the Bush administration!
I love it when the Loons get confused and attack their own. It comes back to that reading and comprehension issue you folks have a severe problem with!

"Let me ask you this question, BC. Your wife is kidnapped and they are threatening to cut off her head. Your neighbor has information that could save her. What would you do?"

I'll tell you what BC would do John D, he's going to find out exactly how much his neighbor paid for his suits!

LOL @ the neocons quoting movies to justify their cowboy position regarding torture, but I suppose that's what validates your stance on the death penalty as well. Yet you refer to yourselves as the pro-life people, promoting a "culture of life."

Ride em, cowboy!

Posted by: Billy Rubin | October 1, 2007 12:13 PM

Were you referring to me? How long have you blogged here?

I'm not a chronic blogger,but I've blogged enough where if you read some of my previous postings you would know I am pretty liberal on most subjects.

This article was in the context of what Bill Clinton thought about a "TV" character. So what's wrong with bringing a movie quote into it?

Also, did you skip the last line of my post or just misinterpret it? That the Bush administration acts "outside" the law to justify its methods.

Yeeeeeeeeeehaw!

I would rather have a law against torture, and in the extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario, make an exception to the law for which an individual presidential pardon must be publically granted (if appropriate) than have any provision in the law allowing torture.

Some might wish to learn what the word, "neocon," means before using it incorrectly. According to the dictionary, it means a former liberal now espousing
conservative principles. The prefix, "neo," is a synonyn for "new." I doubt that description applies to the people being
cited. Ever wonder why no one ever mentions a "neolib?"

Let me ask you this question, BC. Your wife is kidnapped and they are threatening to cut off her head. Your neighbor has information that could save her. What would you do?

Posted by: John D | October 1, 2007 11:56 AM

You torture that sucker....but stop when you find out you have the wrong guy.

Thanks John D.

O.K. if agree with you that this Bill Rubin is an idiot?

..."Your neighbor has information that could save her."...

...how do you know its the neighbor with the information?...

...that's the real question...

...how do you know its the neighbor...

Well, Steve34, I promised to be nice and cuddly in the Swamp to help raise the level of debate here, so I am not sure I can agree with you that Billy Rubin is an idiot. But if you want to call him that, I won't disagree.

What does being a Republication or Democrat have to do with it??? Why do we have to label every position with a politcal party?? If you watch 24 at all, you know that torture is used in a "last resort, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people are going to be killed if you don't find out the answer in two minutes" kind of situation. I would be very afraid of a president who didn't have the bravery to take a stand in such a situation. And lastly, please, spare me the reference to Our Lord in the same discussion as Bill Clinton. There are alot of things Bill would do (did do) that wouldn't pass muster with Him!!!!!

"While Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, he also didn't believe that people should die and not defend themselves."

Are you sure?

"You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."

Jesus Christ was a victim of torture. Please don't pretend he would support it.

Some might wish to learn what the word, "neocon," means before using it incorrectly. According to the dictionary, it means a former liberal now espousing
conservative principles. The prefix, "neo," is a synonyn for "new." I doubt that description applies to the people being
cited. Ever wonder why no one ever mentions a "neolib?"

Posted by: Sequim | October 1, 2007 1:40 PM

I've been waiting for someone to unload with this completely inaccurate definition. Webster's Dictionary is strong in many regards, but maybe that's not the best place to go for up-to-date political definitions. After all, when you hear the term "exploding deficits," do you automatically think "Republican?"

Anyway, back to "neoconservative." First, most NeoCons were never liberal. Sorry, but Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. were never liberal.

Furthermore, "neoconservatism" IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. There are many real conservatives (John W= real conservative; Terry, Bruce, John D= neoconservatives) who would vehemently reject any association with neoconservativism and reject it as worse than liberalism.

From Wikipedia: According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism: a low tax, pro-growth ("paleoconservative") and less risk-averse approach to economics (by definition not conservative); a less libertarian approach to domestic affairs than some other conservatives (not conservative, more interventionist in individuals affairs= highly distasteful to both paleoconservatives and liberals); and an idealist, expansive foreign policy (this is essentially neo-Wilsonian). Neocons are so far to the LEFT they think they're on the RIGHT.

Essentially, neo-conservatism takes the worst excesses of liberalism (Wilsonian Crusading and an unrealistic view of other cultures as well as what can reasonably beaccomplished by a nation such as ours without infinite resources, takes the worst elements of conservatism (refusal to balance budgets, lack of concern for the greater good) and throws them into a stew, tossing in overreliance on untested theories, over-readiness to use force in any situation, refusal to seek consensus, and over-willingness to try to execute academic theory in the real world at the barrel of a gun.

This paragraph will tell you pretty much all you need to no about the "neoconservatives:"

"They insist that the U.S. military must be strong enough to control the world, or else the world will descend into chaos.

Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite."

If the Republican Party ever wishes to regain power, it would be wise to shed the "neo" from its "conservatism" and go back to what it does best: materially support dictators who go on to be our worst enemies (I'm thinking Hussein, Bin Laden, The Shah of Iran, Musharaf...). Now THAT'S good realpolitik!

Dear Anonymous - if we took the Bible literally and just "turned our cheeks (etc etc)" we would all be writing our comments in German or Japanese. Oh, wait. No we wouldn't. We wouldn't be allowed to express our opinion at all. oops

But Sandra D, John McCain just told us all that the judeo-christian principles were so important to the United States that non-christians shouldn't be president.

Are you saying all that blathering from the Republican pary about being good christians is phony? The horror!

Distrust and Verify,

Excellent reply. I live in "red-central", and many of my conservative friends are thoroughly disgusted with the direction the Republican Party has taken. Only hopeless ideologues like Bruce, Lil' Johnny, Terry, JWSI, and Paulo continue to buy the Neocon alternate reality.

Book of Family Values 2: read the bible literally in the case of gays, creation, immaculate conception, abortion, adultery by liberal office holders; adultery by conservative office holders and torture read contextually