News flash to you. There's a difference between possible and probable. The FACT is the veto could have been overridden and it wasn't. Therefore, law was not one mans opinion. Torture has yet to be clearly defined in regard to what was/is happening at Gitmo/Iraq. Some would say that raising their voice is torture while others would say the sky's the limit. Further, the radical left would have terrorists enjoying all constitutional rights if they had their way. Not gonna' happen. I'm with you that Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Seems like the Obama solution is to spend like a ship full of drunken sailors. I also agree that Bush made some mistakes with his appointees. Obama appointing radical leftists is not an improvement.
Is anyone really surprised about the Keynesian "response" given the current Depression that we face? I'm not. And let's not forget, Bernanke and Paulson were also Bush appointees. That fact seems to be lost on many here on ET not too mention the Rush Limpbones, Glenn Becks, and Faux News' of the world.
Your post makes zero sense at all in the context of what we are discussing. I post something that describes the waterboarding of one of the Al Qaeda operatives as being effective, you counter with the above dribble. Ron Paul's thoughts have no bearing on this discussion. I can't tell you how hurt I am to be on your ignore list. Since you're firewalled against reason, it's actually a good thing.
Of what relevance is the effectiveness, or lack thereof? It would be highly effective of me to kill anyone who stood in the way of my material well being, for instance. Would you advocate that I do this? Torture is a war crime. Arguments that terrorists have no rights don't stand in the way of this; while it is recognized that "illegal combatants", that is, people who don't wear uniforms to announce who they are in a situation of war, can be held outside of the normal judicial system and are not entitled to all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, nowhere does anyone recognize a right to torture such people. So arguing that terrorists have no rights while true is beside the point: a nation that captures one still can't kill that person absent an imminent threat from that person without putting him through some sort of process of judgment ending in guilt, and under no circumstances whatsoever can a nation torture anyone it captures. The argument that our soldiers were horribly mutilated is actually an illustration in favor of the ban against torture. Hillary Clinton, in her usual, shall we say flexible, way, tried to not have to explicitly say torture was wrong during the Presidential campaign. She was called on the carpet by a group of retired US generals, and after they read her the riot act, she recanted: Of equal importance to what's being discussed here is this tidbit from this same article. The Hill, btw, is non-partisan, unlike the source for the OP's little rant, The Washington Times: So, if Dems were so complicit, why would they have been publicly expressing such outrage one and a half years ago???? But back to the more important question, for folks who think the future of this country is just a wee bit more important than whether this or that pol was complicit in Bush's war crimes: What argument would the generals make to Hillary? That if we torture, our soldiers will be as well, in larger numbers than they presently are. Our soldiers have been tortured numberless times by countless enemies. Prior to this cowardly generation, no prior generation of Americans thought that because we were tortured, we should too. In this as in so many other areas, this generation is, in numbers larger than its predecessors, a generation of swine. Cowardly swine.
Just a guess? We all know your exceptional Landis. Piece of breaking news about some defense stocks? Let me guess. When it's good news you buy? You....are.....a.....genius! Say hello to all your celebrity trading buddies for me. Tata now.
What relevance is the effectiveness? Are you kidding? Saving American lives has no relevance? Your argument is ridiculous. Bullshit. The difference between what happened to those two soldiers and waterboarding is night and day. Again, moral equivalency. Do you really think those animals who tortured - REALLY tortured - our soldiers give a rats ass if one of their own was waterboarded or not? Do you think that factored into their decision when they castrated our troops and stuffed their penises in their mouths and gouged their eyes out? Let's compare: Waterboarding, three meals a day, allowed Koran, prayer time, etc. Purpose of waterboarding: to gain information that may save lives. V.S. castration, eyes gouged out, ears and tongues cut off, dragged behind a vehicle, eventually decapitated, disfigured beyond recognition. Purpose: to inflict as much pain as possible prior to murdering them. Yep, one and the same.... Give me a fucking break. The moral equivalency argument dishonors their memory.
You have done an excellent job of dodging the real issues surrounding the subject matter relevant to this thread. Here are the indisputable facts: 1. Aggressive interrogation techniques lead to valuable intel which prevented terror attacks and saved thousand of lives. The left does not want this fact disseminated to the public. 2. Dems were well aware that aggressive interrogation techniques were being used and had no problem with it when it was politically convenient. Now that it is politically convenient to oppose such techniques they are exploiting the issue for political gain at the expense of our safety. 3. Terrorists currently have no rights under our constitution, international law, or the Geneva convention. No law can be broken where no law exists. What the left really wants is for terrorists to be extended constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans. 4. The radical left is using this issue to further weaken America in conjunction with their overall agenda to overthrow our current form of government and replace it with their communist ideology. These facts cannot be disputed, least not by anyone with even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty.