Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    September 23, 2006
    Keith's Tortured Logic

    Allah Pundit wrote "Across the dial, right about the same time that O'Reilly and Ross were talking about [the effectiveness of 'torture' by the CIA], smug halfwit Keith Olbermann was blithely asserting that 'torture' doesn't work. You picked the wrong night, jerky." This inspired me to splice the two segments together (click below to view video; give it a moment to load).

    Before you OlbyLoons get bent out of shape, the sequences ARE out of order and sidebar discussions were cut; the purpose was to create a sort of "point/counterpoint" feel to the video - Allah's post has the BOR video, the KO transcript in on MSNBC.com so you can/read the unedited versions for yourself.


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (88) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    88 Comments

    With sissies like this yahoo at the CIA, its no wonder 9/11 happened. "Please explain to me why you want to blow yourself up along with thousands of others" "Uh well...my life sux and I have been promised the afterlife is better (72 virgins)." What a dumbass. Where the hell is Jack Bauer?

    Crash, I always watch "24", I watch Jack Bauer, Jack Bauer is a favorite character of mine. Crash, Jack Rice is no Jack Bauer.

    All I see is one side saying it doesn't work and one side saying it does. One side has anonymous sources on certain isolated cases; one side has a person who worked in the CIA. Torture isn't a left/right issue, don't try and turn it into one.

    And not even two hours after this blog was made you get someone claiming that a person on the other side of the issue is somehow responsible for 9/11. Good job.

    "All I see is one side saying it doesn't work and one side saying it does."

    But you didn't learn this on Countdown, did you?

    I learned about it from watching O'Reilly, where he had Ross on talking about how, according to his sources, "rough" interrogation techniques led to quality leads and intelligence. But O'Reilly also had a guest on who disagreed with Ross and said that her sources contradicted that argument.

    O'Reilly was fair to both points of view. Olbermann was not.

    Why do you think KO did this?

    Bad show, bad journalist, bad product.

    End of subject.

    SMG

    Sorry, Steve, your word isn't law. What I learned from O'Reilly's show was that a reporter is claiming that torture worked against certain terrorists, and I'll believe him when I see some facts. It's interesting how you say that O'Reilly was "fair" to the argument against torture. I'd like to know if others on this site believe that that's possible. I said that it's possible to be balanced and still hold a position on an issue, those on the right said I was dead wrong. I don't think O'Reilly was fair to the argument against torture; it was quite obvious that he was biased against it, just like it was obvious that Olbermann was biased for it.

    I just can't believe that some of those on the far right of the political spectrum want torture to be a policy of the United States. Same people who think that all people in Gitmo are guilty.

    "Sorry, Steve, your word isn't law"

    But it's not my word, Nonfactor. I never claimed to be the definitive or final voice on this issue.

    I have zero firsthand (or even second, third et ctera) knowledge on whether these techniques are effective or not.

    The issue on the table is the claim by Olberman that there is no evidence that these techniques yield "workable" intelligence.

    We have O'Reilly with a ABC investigative reporter who says that his sources claim that they did yield substantive information. Then, O'Reilly had a guest back on (from a human rights organization that I can't recall) who refuted what Ross's sources told him.

    Olbermann, on the other hand, gives one and only one side of the story.

    Why? Why didn't KO have a guest on who offers a alternative view on whether these techniques are productive or not?

    Any ideas?

    SMG

    Nonfactor is quite correct.

    He and I and Keith Olbermann and EVERYONE ELSE ON THE LEFT are outraged that you evil Republicans continue to trample on the rights of Al-Qaeda detainees like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, etc.

    Al-Qaeda has rights and those of us like Nonfactor and Keith Olbermann will continue to demand that their rights are protected.

    ** Democrats in '06...protecting the rights of Al-Qaeda **

    Nonfactor:
    "I just can't believe that some of those on the far right of the political spectrum want torture"

    Again, that's not the issue right now.

    The question is whether "rough" techniques yield intelligence.

    If they do, then if the US decides not to under any circumstance employ these techniques, then we as a people must understand that it's quite possible - indeed likely given the nature of the enemy we face - that this will cost us American lives.

    There is no clear answer to this question. Whatever choice we decide will have a cost.

    Now the easy thing for you folks on the Left, since you're out of power, is to take the high ground and advocate a position that has no consequences for you if the policy fails. If we were to adapt your policy now, and another preventable attack occurred, you would just blame Bush.

    But believe it or not, Nonfactor, Democrats will one day again run this country. And these enormously difficult issues will confont you guys. You'll have to come up with solutions.

    And one of those solutions won't be "It's Bush's fault."

    (And FWIW, I'm against these techniques)

    SMG

    "Sorry, Steve, your word isn't law. "

    SMG I am appointing you Sheriff of the comments section of Olbermann Watch. From this point forward your word is law on OlbyWatch.

    "a reporter is claiming that torture worked against certain terrorists, and I'll believe him when I see some facts"

    Short of being present personally during the interrogation what facts would you be willing to accept?

    I do not see many responsible people in this country arguing that the techniques used did not yield results. The question is not whether they work but to what lengths are we willing to go in order to get these results. It is a good discussion for the country to have; it serves no purpose to deny the obvious - that these techniques did yield information. And that is what Olbermann is putting forward here - the obviously absurd claim that torture does not work and, worse, that there is "near unanimous" agreement on that point.

    So, let's start with the simplest point.

    Do you believe what Keith said at the top of the piece - that there is "near unanimous agreement" that "aggressive interrogation" does not work?

    Bob:
    "I am appointing you Sheriff of the comments section of Olbermann Watch"

    Hmm, what's second prize? Er, could I take cash instead?

    Anyway, I'd rather be King, if I could.

    As Mel Brooks said (or his character), "It's good to be King".

    SMG

    Another person with the "twisted logic" syndrome is Brian Stelter of TVNewser. Bob, isn't it time for another "TVN: Journalism At Its Finest?" He's posted 4 anti-O'Reilly columns in the past few days, 3 columns accusing Fox of conservative bias and a column skeptical of another Olbermann competitor (Nancy Grace).

    At the same time, he has completely ignored Olbermann's 4 consecutive 4th place finishes, including in the "demo" that MSNBC wants Stelter to promote. Remember, this is coming from someone who once posted an entire column about Olbermann beating O'Reilly in "the demo" for 15 MINUTES!!!!!!!!

    It's so easy to tear this kid apart and Bob, you do the best job of anyone. Go get 'em.

    "Again, that's not the issue right now."

    Which is why I put it in a different paragraph. I was commenting on another point.

    "If we were to adapt your policy now, and another preventable attack occurred, you would just blame Bush."

    It's like you can reeeeaaad miiiiiinds...

    "You'll have to come up with solutions."

    You act as if that's a bad thing. Democrats have a history of coming up with the right solutions at the right time while Republicans have their tax cuts that were supposed to solve our economic problems.

    Nonfactor is correct again.

    The government needs to raise taxes on the rich and give us poorer people more money.

    The rich people owe us!!!

    Solve our economic problems, rich bastards!!

    ** Democrats in '06...criticizing success and prosperity since 1820 **

    "Democrats have a history of coming up with the right solutions at the right time while Republicans have their tax cuts that were supposed to solve our economic problems."


    Yeah the dems did wonders in their ideas with their nuclear disarmament and demagoguery of "peace through strength". What are these solutions of which you speak? What are these economic problems of which you speak? Oh let me guess...the defecit. When you are in a war you run defecits. Why? Because of the ludicrous spending programs implemented by the "solution providers" dating back to FDR. If the tax cuts were so bad, why did revenues go up after the tax rate was cut? Why did we get out of a recesion that started in February 2001 (I am sure that was Bush's fault too)? Why do we have record low unemployment?

    I am not going to defend Bush's record spending because that too is ludicrous, but a democrat criticizing it is like Jacko accusing someone of pedophelia or Olbermann accusing someone of "fear mongering".

    Nonfactor is right!!!! democrats always have the right solutions. It just seems you always find out about them only after they get elected and then it always, always includes a tax increase!!!!

    I say we rent a Lear-Jet. Put Nonfactor on it with a planeload of cookies and milk, and 1-800-Lawyers cards. Send him down to Club Gitmo and have him bring back the info we need!!!!!!

    Let me give props to Nonfactor. He is one of the few on the left on this site that does watch "The Factor".

    >"Oh let me guess...the defecit. When you are in a war you run defecits."

    Are you ignoring history? Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency in 1933-45, we were in a war, yet we managed to come out of a depression and not run an obscene deficit. True conservatives should be outraged at the way the Republicans in Congress are messing around with the national treasury. Democrats haven't come anywhere close to what Bush is doing.

    http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
    Read that link for some nice information on the history of the United States debt.

    And lets not forget that the Democrats controlled both houses from 1954-1994, don't act like no good legislation came out of America during that time.

    Do any Conservatives agree with the President's tax cuts and why? Is it trickle-down economics or what? If it's good for the rich it must be good for the country?

    Nonfactor:
    The US ran up enormous deficits during WWII. As a percentage of GDP, it was 7-8 times higher than the current deficits.

    Link:
    http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage.png

    Of course, we were in war on two fronts and needed to spend the money on defense. I'm not "blaming" anyone; it was resources that we had to expend for our survival.

    Second:
    "And lets not forget that the Democrats controlled both houses from 1954-1994"

    No, the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1953-55 and from 1981-1987.

    As to the tax cuts: should have been scaled back a bit. But clearly coming out of the bubble bursting in the dotcoms and then 9/11, the cuts were a necessary stimulus that helped lessen the shocks cause by those two events.


    SMG

    Steve,
    We have heard from people who have had first-hand experience with torture. John McCain is against torture; he claims it doesn't work. Lindsey Graham is against torture; he probably knows more about torture than most. Jack Rice is a CIA agent who we can assume has more knowledge of torture than an ABC reporter. Then we have an ABC reporter with anonymous sources. If you read the thread for KO's September 21 show you'll see Robert and Johnny Dollar were attacking anonymous sources. But I assume they love anonymous sources in this case.
    By the way, Crash, Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

    Robert,
    I'm not sure if you're claiming to have top-secret clearance, access to the interrogations or what? How do you know which techniques yielded which information? Isn't it possible McCain, Warner, Rice, Graham, etc. are right? Maybe we can obtain more reliable information through techniques other than torture? Maybe Bush is right when he says a major part of this is a battle for hearts and minds? Maybe it helps us win the battle for hearts and minds by not torturing? By being seen as being opposed to torture?

    On another note, your poll is laughable. Would you post this poll if the roles were reversed? If the reporter claimed his anonymous sources claim torture doesn't work but Rice claimed torture does work? Would you be taking the word of a reporter and his anonymous sources over the word of a CIA agent concerning torture if you personally agreed with the agent?

    So gradually reducing taxes for wealthier Americans somehow reduces the shock of 9/11? That's the trickle-down theory. Where if you give the rich money they'll encourage growh and spending; it doesn't work, and isn't a fair way for the government to treat the economy.

    How can you believe the tax cuts are necessary, but too much at the same time? That's the argument against the tax cuts--they're way too much and discrimatory towards Americans who make less money than the top 3%.

    And the difference between WWII and now is inflation. We will be stuck in the rut caused by President Bush unless inflation occurs at the same rate it did from 1940-2000.

    Colber:
    "We have heard from people who have had first-hand experience with torture."

    Well, here's a first hand account that says it does work. At least with him:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/4.html

    Now, I'm not in any way advocating what was done to him. Nor am I advocating any of the lesser tactics such as waterboarding. Sleep deprivation and loud music, don't bother me.

    But if we're merely discussing whether it can yield information, I think there is some evidence that it can.

    SMG

    I do not believe that the Bush Administration wants carte-blanche to torture. And we arenot talkingthumb screws, the rack and the the lash either. When an enemy combatant is captured and believed to have knowledge of something like an attack on America or American citizens then some form of coercive action may be taken and must be taken to avert a tragedy.
    Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo have better healthcare than I do! They get korans and prayer mats and something noteven usually found in their own country- toilet paper. They are not beheaded or tortured. We damn sure treat them better than they do our boys who are captured. How about some of these anti- torture advocates pushing the terrorists to adhere to the Geneva convention?
    Think about it some combatant is taken off the battle field who has knowledge of a so called dirty bomb planted in some large American city with the capablity to kill thousands and injure tens of thousands. What do you do? Just ask nicely or uses coercive methodsto save American lives? When do the rights of terrorists supercede the rights of the citizens of this country to thwart an attack?

    Senator Graham dissects your statements pretty well, riverdog. I suggest you research them and learn something.

    maybe you need to learn nonfactor some common sense, patriotism and to stop being such a condescending leftard a--hole. You are not smart enough to even know what you are talking about. What experience of knowledge do you have on the matter? Suddenly now you want to listen to some conservative senator when it happens to be convient for you? Maybe you ned to grow up and maybe somehow , somehere aquire enough mental capacity to even realize that you are an a--hole . Then whe you realize what a a--hole you have been come back and talk to me.
    I'll just bet you are the type that if some kid was being held by some child molestor somewhere and that molestor was caught but the kid wasn't found you would be concerned with the molestors rights than the little kids rights. You sound like that type of idiot more concerned with the rights of the scumbag than the rights of the victim- another words a typical liberal ACLU type jackass.

    >"maybe you need to learn nonfactor some common sense, patriotism and to stop being such a condescending leftard a--hole."

    Is this even a sentence?

    >"What experience of knowledge do you have on the matter?"

    Research, the same as you. Unless you were in Gitmo or the CIA.

    >"Suddenly now you want to listen to some conservative senator when it happens to be convient for you?"

    Would you have liked it better if I told you to research what Harry Reid has said on the subject? No, I mentioned Sen. Graham because it'd be something that would most likely bode over better towards a conservative as yourself.

    >"Maybe you ned to grow up and maybe somehow , somehere aquire enough mental capacity to even realize that you are an a--hole . Then whe you realize what a a--hole you have been come back and talk to me."

    Really was that necessary? My entire post was only two sentences.

    >"I'll just bet you are the type that if some kid was being held by some child molestor somewhere and that molestor was caught but the kid wasn't found you would be concerned with the molestors rights than the little kids rights. You sound like that type of idiot more concerned with the rights of the scumbag than the rights of the victim- another words a typical liberal ACLU type jackass."

    Wow. Why did I even bother responding to someone like you?

    Once again the libs that contribute on this site can't answer the earlier question posed.

    If the tax cuts were so bad, why did revenues go up after the tax rate was cut? Why did we get out of a recesion that started in February 2001 (I am sure that was Bush's fault too)? Why do we have record low unemployment?

    Another thing. The tax cuts weren't only targeted to the Rich. If that were the case, then why did the percentage of federal revenue garnered via the top 1% of wage earners actually go up 2 percentage points of total revenue after the tax cuts. But the democrats scream "tax cuts for the rich tax cuts for the rich!!!" Reading Paul "enormous douchebag" Krugman does not make it so.

    The point about defecits as a pecentage of gdp has already been made. But the democrats scream "record defeceits record defeceits!!!". As if there is no such thing as inflation and a dollar today = a dollar in 1945. No wonder the dems are so trusted in economics, they haven't even grasped the concept of inflaton in currency. But what would you expect from "tax" and "regulate" philosophers?

    NonFactor,
    You speak of "research" as if you have done some. I didn't know Dr. Seuss put out an economic series. That's just precious. It's cute that you want to talk "money" with the "grown-ups".

    Colbert,
    Thanks for the updates Captain Obvious. I WANT MORE CIA OPERATIVES LIKE JACK BAUER AND LESS LIKE JANE FONDA (JACK RICE). Anyone who says all types of uncomfortable inquisition is toture is disengenious at best. Anyone who would suggest that no good information can come from torture is a liar. Anyone who suggests that Bush is in favor of torture is a liar. Anyone who would deny the existence of a scenario in which harsh tactics (maybe even torture) is warranted is a fool. Anyone who would deny that legal protections need to be made for CIA operatives who may need to play out a "ticking bomb" type scenario is a moron.

    "Olbermann watch" is itself proof positive that degrading torture works; For many individuals(such as J. Dollar) even brief exposure to that discredited sports personalities rantings, elicits a immediate, strong outpouring of truth and candor from the victim in order to gain some sense of relief....

    nonfactor:"Wow. Why did I even bother responding to someone like you?"
    good then don't! maybe when you grow up you can be an English teacher.

    Here's a classic question that always shuts up the conservatives here, or at least gets them to stop with the name-calling: How is the war in Iraq a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    When you guys can make a post without an insult I might feel the need to address you.

    "Here's a classic question that always shuts up the conservatives here, or at least gets them to stop with the name-calling: How is the war in Iraq a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA."

    One less terror supporting regime. One less regime that is trying to wipe Israel off the map. Democracies don't attack other democracies. Democracies breed moderates. Moderates are our best weapon against Islamo-nutjobs. Stability in the Middle East leads to stability in oil prices which effects the entire globe. 9/11 also taught us that states friendly to terrorists are not to be tolerated.

    All that being said. None of this will happen if we continue to pussyfoot around in Iraq. Punishment for insurgents should be swift and steep. Just as we did in the de-nazification of Germany.

    Crash, you can't bring democracy at the barrel of a gun.

    And don't let Japan, South Korea and Germany tell you any differently...as soon as we remove our brutal military occupation from those countries then they'll finally be able to establish their own representative governments free from the puppet regimes we've installed there.

    ** Democrats in '06...using flawed logic to make an argument since 1922 **

    War in Iraq-
    win- fighting al-queda on THEIR ground not ours
    win-strategic location for containment of Iran
    win-fighting terrorists
    win-democratic Iraq
    win- Saddam GONE
    win-If American liberals and Bush-haters will let is win.
    "When you guys can make a post without an insult I might feel the need to address you"
    Well thank you your highness,you ought to take your own advice nonfactor. are you that myopic that you cannot even see your own damn hypocrisy? if you really feel that way why don't you go to dailykos, thinkprogress,DU or any of the other myriad socialist -progresive website and comiserate and whine about the eveil conservatives?
    If you are gonna shut up just shut up and do it- don't tell me you are gonna shut up- just shut up.
    I already know you are an a--hole you don't need to keep proving it to me with all your posts. Maybe you can feel the need to talk to somebody who wants to listen to your incessant liberal whining and sniveling. When I want to listen to a liberal a--hole I'll watch Olbermann.

    >"One less terror supporting regime."

    Facts please. Where is the evidence that Saddam ever supported any terrorist organization?

    >"One less regime that is trying to wipe Israel off the map."

    Wha? Facts please. When was Saddam trying to actively "wipe Israel off the map"?

    >"Moderates are our best weapon against Islamo-nutjobs."

    How so? Don't just claim something and not elaborate on it. And what does this have to do with Iraq, it was a secular state.

    >"Democracies don't attack other democracies."

    How does this relate to Iraq? Was Saddam trying to attack us anyways?

    >"Stability in the Middle East leads to stability in oil prices which effects the entire globe."

    True, but again this has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam wasn't a threat to the United States, we had him contained.

    >"9/11 also taught us that states friendly to terrorists are not to be tolerated."

    Saddam was friendly to terrorists? Facts please.

    Your entire post seems to just be strings of talking points linked together, but with no facts attached. What do any of the things you mentioned have to do with the question I asked? How is Iraq a win for us, or how will it be a win for us?

    >"fighting al-queda on THEIR ground not ours"

    That's the thing, Al-qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. It wasn't their ground, Afghanistan was. And the talking point you used isn't based in reality.

    >"strategic location for containment of Iran"

    We invaded so we could contain Iran? We can't even contain Iraq, how are we going to contain Iran?

    >"fighting terrorists"

    Didn't you already say this?

    Looked through the rest of your two word answers, and they all don't make any sense. How is Iraq a win for the United States? How will it become a win for the United States?

    P.S. Calm down riverdog, you're on the internet.

    Saddam rewarded suicide bombers' families with $25,000.

    Nonfactor is correct again.

    Iraq was a peaceful nation with Kurds, Shiites and Sunni living in harmony all the while having to deal with the oppressive evil UN sanctions imposed on it by the U.S. for 12 years.

    Then the war criminal U.S. President attacked Iraq by falsely claiming it had WMDs and that it was acting under prior UN approval...and for 4 days, this war criminal U.S. President bombed the peaceful Iraqis. The U.S. President I'm referring to is Bill Clinton in 1998.

    And those reports of Saddam financially supporting the families of suicide bombers or that he planned to kill a former U.S. President are all just a Zionist conspiracies.

    We ALL ON THE LEFT support the recent comments by Dem. Senator Rockefeller regarding Saddam and are calling for the immediate release of the REAL President of Iraq and for him to be placed back in power.

    My god Nonfactor are you that naive?..Saddam gave money to the familes of suicide bombers,he had training camps for terrorist(including the shell of an old jetliner for them to practice with)Iraq was a safehaven for al-Qaeda members,As for being contained there was a big push by the UN to lift the restrictions on him so he was going to be allowed to be back in bussiness.He did use WMD and was trying to become a Nuclear power untill Israel put a stop to it.

    Saddam was a threat..a rich,pro-terrorist dictator who had used WMD,wanted nukes hated the US and Israel and was going to be let off the mat by the weasles of the UN..After 9/11 the ideal of letting that happen was unthinkable.

    Simpson,

    You disgust US ALL ON THE LEFT.

    You expect the families of suicide bombers to go without food because their sons were willing to stand up against the evil Neo-Con Bush/Rove/Joos and die so that they could bang 72 virgins in paradise for all eternity!?

    ** Democrats in '06...calling for the release of Saddam Hussein **
    Saddam was doing his humanitarian duty and WE ALL ON THE LEFT applaud him for it.

    Nonfactor,

    How is it possible for you not know that Saddam actively funded Hamas? How is that possible? As mentioned earlier, known all over the entire rational world, $25K to the family of any suicide bomber willing to attack Israel. He also directly funded the PLO. My GOD I thought you just knew this stuff.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

    How can you possibly talk about the issue of Iraq without the slightest bit of rudimentary knowledge? Seriously.

    So because he gave money to the families of suicide bombers we needed to invade Iraq? Even the President has said there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Mlong, can you give me a link that says Saddam was willingly harboring terrorists and setting up training camps for them?

    You admit that he was contained, only that the UN was going to lift some "restrictions" (facts please) to allow him to create WMDs. You don't invade and occupy a country because the UN might lift restrictions on a guy. And guess what, the government we've installed is pro-Hezbollah, should we reinvade them? You're actually willing to see more than 2000 American soldiers die because a guy we took out of power three years ago might have been a threat if the UN took away some restrictions?

    What does any of this have to do with the reason we invaded Iraq and why we're still there?

    Why is Iraq a win for the United States, or why will it be a win for the United States?

    Someone ask Nonfactor if he even knows how Saddam Hussein first came to power...I think he needs a history lesson.

    "Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both U.S. allies — pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers."
    Source: cbsnews.com

    Should we invade them too?

    Since your rebuttal was completely obliterated.....

    "How is the war in Iraq a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA."

    One less terror supporting regime. One less regime that is trying to wipe Israel off the map. Democracies don't attack other democracies. Democracies breed moderates. Moderates are our best weapon against Islamo-nutjobs. Stability in the Middle East leads to stability in oil prices which effects the entire globe. 9/11 also taught us that states friendly to terrorists are not to be tolerated.


    Terrorist camp link from that Bush loving group over at PBS:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

    Gee I didn't charities = government.

    Nonfactor,

    Our engagement with Iraq started way before GWB became President.

    Bill Clinton needed no 9-11 attack justification or Al-Qaeda connection to use military force against Iraq in 1998.

    The military action in 2003 was a continuation of a 12 year engagement with Iraq.

    But Saddam was a secularist, that means he was good.

    Crash, that's not a report, it's an interview. What facts did he have to back him up is what I'm wondering. Are there any reports by news organizations (not opinion pieces) that have confirmed this?

    So that's your only piece of "evidence"? Out of all those ludicrous talking points you can only give me a link to an interview by someone with no articles to back it up? Give me a break. If we invaded and occupied Iraq simply to try and get another ally (in your opinion) then there's really no use discussing the war with you.

    P.S. Anonymous 5:06, tell that to your political science teacher. I'm sure he'll believe you.

    Nonfactor,

    POP QUIZ:

    Who said this?

    "Good evening.

    Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

    Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

    Too many facts....too much sense....I am having reason overload. Please help....must...get...back...to...ignorance.

    In 1999 some members of Saddam's circle were invited to a meeting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Colin Powell has admitted that documents he produced for the U.N. were false. And you still provide opinion pieces. None of them answered the question though or explain why we went to Iraq.

    Nonfactor...

    Why do you think Bill Clinton took military action against Iraq in 1998 when there was no such Iraq/9-11 or Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection?

    And yes, they answered your question repeatedly, but let me quote Crash's answer from above again for you:

    "One less terror supporting regime. One less regime that is trying to wipe Israel off the map. Democracies don't attack other democracies. Democracies breed moderates. Moderates are our best weapon against Islamo-nutjobs. Stability in the Middle East leads to stability in oil prices which effects the entire globe. 9/11 also taught us that states friendly to terrorists are not to be tolerated."

    Nonfactor asks:
    "Mlong, can you give me a link that says Saddam was willingly harboring terrorists and setting up training camps for them?"

    He is provided numerous links. One of which is a un speech given by Colin Powell in which he says:

    "Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah. And it’s no secret that Saddam’s own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s."

    Other links provide interviews of former Iraqi Secret Intellegence Officials. While others point to eyewitness accounts and chemical weapons tests by MSNBC, and documents recovered by the US military revealing the terrorist camps.

    And then....
    Nonfactor writes:

    "Colin Powell has admitted that documents he produced for the U.N. were false. And you still provide opinion pieces. None of them answered the question though or explain why we went to Iraq."

    I am sorry dude. You are insane.

    The majority of Crash's points don't have to do with Iraq, and they aren't reasons why Iraq is a win for the United States, rather talking points used to justify why we're in Iraq.

    Yes, I'm not denying that Saddam was a bad guy, and that he's done bad things, but how did taking him out help the United States? We know know that we are less safe because of the war in Iraq, and on top of that Iraqi civilians and American soldiers are dying every day because of the violence.

    You've done a nice job in trying to justify why we went into Iraq, or why you think we should continue to stay there, but why is the War in Iraq a win for the United States or how would we make it a win for the United States?

    Colin Powell did admit to saying knowingly false things to the U.N. and in interviews; it isn't insanity it's the truth.

    Nonfactor tell us how surrendering in Iraq is a good thing for us?

    "Colin Powell did admit to saying knowingly false things to the U.N. and in interviews; it isn't insanity it's the truth"

    PROVE IT.

    Then according to you Klinton was lying about Iraq and so was the UN and most of the world. All things pointed to Iraq having WMDs. For years Hussein stymied the weapons inpsectors, violated the no fly zones, used the oil for food scheme to starve his people and build his palaces and build back up his military.
    I still believe that Hussein had WMDs but either buried them or shipped them to Syria before the outbreak of the war. Hussein was an evil guy ho had delusions of grandeur and at the time of the war almost everybody believed he had WMDs. He needed to go and we need to stay in Iraq and not surrender and leave like we did in VietNam. In Nam when we left it the communists took over almost immediately just like the terrorists will in Iraq if we leave.

    "Colin Powell did admit to saying knowingly false things to the U.N. and in interviews; it isn't insanity it's the truth."


    PROVE IT

    "Colin Powell did admit to saying knowingly false things to the U.N. and in interviews; it isn't insanity it's the truth."


    PROVE IT

    To the U.N. Security Council he said something along the lines of: "There's no doubt that Saddam has biological weapons and the capability" and "no doubt in my mind that he's working to get nuclear weapons." Along with the mobile weapons labs. In interviews since he retired he's said how ashamed he was at what he said and how he'll have to live with what he did. I remember Barbra Walters and Meet the Press. I'll find quotes from him later.

    you can find a transcript on the UN web site but don't because you will find that you have misquoted and mischaracterized what was said and if you see that your head will explode.

    you can find a transcript on the UN web site but don't because you will find that you have misquoted and mischaracterized what was said and if you see that your head will explode.

    Nonfactor has repeatedly asked:

    "Why is the War in Iraq a win for the United States or how would we make it a win for the United States?"

    One word: foothold.

    Even Bill Clinton believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This is why Democrats went along with the war plan. Even he has admitted he was surprised to find out that there were none in Iraq or more correctly, that none have been FOUND as of yet. So if Bill Clinton thought the intel was correct why is Bush getting blamed for being "wrong" about it?

    liberals are going to tryand find something negative about the war in Iraq no mater what. Even tho many ultra liberal members of the democrat party voted for the war including Shrillary Klinton, I am pretty sure Miz Klinton got the OK or at least got counsel from her husband that Iqar had WMD's. If anybody i the world had inelligence regarding the condtion in Iraq it would be Bubba.
    The leftards now just want to bame Bush and in their conspiracy theory addled mind they are grasping for straws.
    I would be still willing to bet money that those WMDs either went into a hole deep underground or Syria.

    Crash,
    Are you called Crash because your head crashed into the floor when you were a baby? You sound as dumb as Ispeakfortheleft who is trying to be an idiot.
    First you speak about deficits without knowing how to spell the word. That was the first clue you have no idea what you're talking about. But please. Apply to become an economics professor at Princeton University like Krugman is. You clearly think you're a better economist than he is. Or maybe you can become a member of the Group of Thirty.

    The recession began in March 2001. Please tell me you aren't stupid enough to think we were going to be in a recession for nearly six years even it Bush never cut tax rates. It's odd you mention inflation as the reason for Bush's budget deficits but don't think inflation affects federal revenues. You also mention the deficit is lower as a percentage of GDP than it was in WWII but don't mention federal revenues are at their lowest percentage of GDP since 1950. Record low unemployment? It's at 4.7% and it was at 4.2% when Bush took office. Some might say the unemployment rate is higher now than it was when Bush took over. Wages are stagnant for most workers. Non-defense discretionary spending has increased considerably under Bush. The poverty rate has increased under Bush. More people lack health insurance now than when Bush took over. Health insurance and healthcare costs have skyrocketed under Bush. Energy and education costs have skyrocketed under Bush. If you live in the real world, as opposed to living with your parents, you'd know the economy is working as well for workers as Bush would like to claim.
    Polls show (even Fox polls) Americans trust Democrats over Republicans on handling the economy.

    Now onto torture. Be smart enough not to contradict yourself. You said "anyone who would deny the existence of a scenario in which harsh tactics (maybe even torture) is warranted is a fool." Then you said "anyone who suggests that Bush is in favor of torture is a liar." So Bush is definitely not in favor of something (torture) that any fool can see is warranted. That's a great point you made. Thanks for showing Bush isn't as smart as a fool.

    Iraq was not a safe haven for al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded there were no ties between Saddam and al Qaeda and they hated each other. We were fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan, their base, and could have continued fighting them there. Iraq is not becoming an ally of Iran instead of an enemy which doesn't help us at all. A new National Intelligence Estimate says the Iraq War is hurting us in the War on Terror by creating more terrorists. In case you haven't noticed, Iraq isn't stable. Iraq's "democracy" is in trouble. The Sunni's and Shiite's hate each other and are killing each other. Sectarian violence and failure to reach political agreement is a much bigger problem than foreign terrorists in Iraq. Hitler was elected for those who claim anyone democratically elected can't possibly attack another democracy. If you're so concerned about Israel maybe you should read statements made by Iraq's elected Prime Minister and elected Parliamentary leader. They also seem to be fond of Ahmadinejad. Israel attacked the Iraq nuclear reactor in 1981. We went to war in 2003 because of that?
    Saddam gave money to suicide bombers' families after they were dead. Saudi Arabia gave money to suicide bombers too but we didn't attack them.

    Crash,
    Did you read this in your link? The INC is Chalabi's group. That's where "Curveball" came from. They're known liars. Only an idiot with an IQ lower than 80 would still believe them. Which explains why you believe them.
    "[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak.]"
    To your defense about Saudi Arabia: the "charities" ran telethons on state-run TV to raise money for the suicide bombers.
    You provide four links from right-wing sources which state things even the President is claiming. Powell's statements have been proven false. There was a preliminary test showing possible traces of possible toxins? Why isn't Bush on this with definitive proof Iraq had the WMD's he said they did?

    By the way, this "the Democrats voted for the war" is a lie. Assume you buy the lie the vote was a vote for war instead of a vote to put teeth into U.N. weapons inspections. The Congressional Democrats voted 147-110 against the resolution.

    Colbert, when did this Senate Intelligence report come out?

    Colbert wrote " A Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded there were no ties between Saddam and al Qaeda and they hated each other"

    Brandon - Colbert is quoting from the minority report contained within the Senate report - in other words he is reading what the Democrats wrote into the report and this is not a conclusion of the committee but language inserted into an addendum attached to the official report by Jay Rockefeller.

    It does, however, SOUND impressive, doesn't it?

    Exactly Bob. Note Colbert wouldn't come forward with the true story there, but much like his idol Olby is cherry-picking the "facts". Why am I not surprised?

    Colbert "Iraq was not a safe haven for al Qaeda."

    UK troops kill bin Laden lieutenant
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20477837-1702,00.html

    What struck me about this story is that Omar Faruq was found hiding out in Basra which is in the Shia south of Iraq.

    It is just a more recent example of why this lib notion of who works with who in the world of global terrorism is so dangerously oversimplified. I don't KNOW who is working with who or why but to claim as a starting point that x group would NEVER work with y group is absurd. You lefties have better arguments than this - get off it because this is a LOSER for you.

    "And that is what Olbermann is putting forward here - the obviously absurd claim that torture does not work and, worse, that there is "near unanimous" agreement on that point."

    Score another one for the bowler hat patrol.

    When you are done with your hypertechnical gramatical fisking of a randon talking head consider this: Torture does not work. It destroys your moral standing and your society.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html

    "I have seen what happens to a society that becomes enamored of such methods in its quest for greater security; it takes more than words and political compromise to beat back the impulse.

    This is a new debate for Americans, but there is no need for you to reinvent the wheel. Most nations can provide you with volumes on the subject. Indeed, with the exception of the Black Death, torture is the oldest scourge on our planet (hence there are so many conventions against it). Every Russian czar after Peter the Great solemnly abolished torture upon being enthroned, and every time his successor had to abolish it all over again. These czars were hardly bleeding-heart liberals, but long experience in the use of these "interrogation" practices in Russia had taught them that once condoned, torture will destroy their security apparatus. They understood that torture is the professional disease of any investigative machinery.

    Apart from sheer frustration and other adrenaline-related emotions, investigators and detectives in hot pursuit have enormous temptation to use force to break the will of their prey because they believe that, metaphorically speaking, they have a "ticking bomb" case on their hands. But, much as a good hunter trains his hounds to bring the game to him rather than eating it, a good ruler has to restrain his henchmen from devouring the prey lest he be left empty-handed. Investigation is a subtle process, requiring patience and fine analytical ability, as well as a skill in cultivating one's sources.

    When torture is condoned, these rare talented people leave the service, having been outstripped by less gifted colleagues with their quick-fix methods, and the service itself degenerates into a playground for sadists. Thus, in its heyday, Joseph Stalin's notorious NKVD (the Soviet secret police) became nothing more than an army of butchers terrorizing the whole country but incapable of solving the simplest of crimes. And once the NKVD went into high gear, not even Stalin could stop it at will. He finally succeeded only by turning the fury of the NKVD against itself; he ordered his chief NKVD henchman, Nikolai Yezhov (Beria's predecessor), to be arrested together with his closest aides.

    So, why would democratically elected leaders of the United States ever want to legalize what a succession of Russian monarchs strove to abolish? Why run the risk of unleashing a fury that even Stalin had problems controlling? Why would anyone try to "improve intelligence-gathering capability" by destroying what was left of it? Frustration? Ineptitude? Ignorance? Or, has their friendship with a certain former KGB lieutenant colonel, V. Putin, rubbed off on the American leaders? I have no answer to these questions, but I do know that if Vice President Cheney is right and that some "cruel, inhumane or degrading" (CID) treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already."

    Vladimir Bukovsky

    Why is it that so many on the left just lack basic reading and comprehension skills?

    Nonfactor wrote: Even the President has said there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

    No, he didn't. He said that there was no operational connection between Sadam and the 9/11 attack. Not no connection, just that Sadam was not involved operationally in the 9/11 attacks.

    Since you like asking questions so much, let me ask you this: Where was al-Zawqari, a confirmed member of al Qaeda, and the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in March of 2003, before the war in Iraq started?

    www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/

    "Where was al-Zawqari, a confirmed member of al Qaeda, and the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in March of 2003, before the war in Iraq started?"

    In a known location in Iraq patroled by U.S. warplanes.
    Where was he after we invaded?

    And just so you can see just how stupid this connection of yours is, where were the 9-11 bombers in the year preceeding the event?

    Robert,
    What does that article have to do with my statement you quoted? He was shot dead in Iraq a few days ago so he was in Iraq working with Saddam before we invaded? So now we should go to war with any country which might at some point decide to work with a terrorist group? Gee, Canada might decide to help al Qaeda in the year 2704. I say we take those bastards out now. It's a good thing you're not running our foreign policy.

    Brandon and Robert,
    Your assertions about the intelligence report are simply untrue. It was a Republican-controlled committee which concluded there was no evidence to supprt the Iraqi-al Qaeda connection. Nice try though.

    erie Bob,
    It's not nice to point out conservatives, by their Rush-logic, are claiming the U.S. harbored the 9/11 hijackers. They aren't allowed to disagree with anything Rush (unless he ever contradicts the Bible because that thing can never be wrong) says and never will. It isn't their fault they can't think.

    No, nice try Colbert in claiming one thing is true when it was most certainly not. But again, you twist and distort and lie just like Olbermann does. Look, if for no other reason than than to quote the truth for a change, why don't you stop watching your boy Olby? He's impairing your thinking.

    Nice site!
    [url=http://zxfcapoe.com/ldbd/dnvu.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://dptysyls.com/gfgh/gbnk.html]Cool site[/url]

    Brandon,
    I'll quote the report. "Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."
    You and Robert are confused. The Republicans you're talking about aren't claiming the pre-war intelligence about WMD's was correct but that Bush didn't intententionally mislead anyone. They're claiming it was faulty intelligence, not intentional lying.

    u suck

    What's interesting about this discussion, and I speak specifically to the pro-torture contingent here, is not whether or not torture works. That piece of information is irrelevant to the discussion. It's irrelevant for the same reason carpet-bombing the Middle East with nukes is irrelevant: whether it solves our problem or not is not the question.

    We are a nation of laws, and we are a nation of civil liberties and we are a nation of human rights. Those human rights and civil liberties are protected by our laws, and are the cornerstones of our moral foundation as a nation. The laws that place all Americans before the same set of rules, and permit all Americans the same rights and liberties, are the foundation of our success as a nation. The moral character of our nation was part and parcel of why we could lead the free world through some of its darkest moments, because we had taken the moral high ground and we could say with authority that such evils as Hitler and Stalin were wrong.

    I grew up in the America where we firmly and fervently believed we lived in the greatest country on Earth. And we knew that we did because over in Soviet Russia, people could be removed without notice or hindrance from their communities, without the right to appeal to anyone, without the right to redress of grievances, without the right to fair trial, and finally without the right to live. They could be spirited away from their homes and damned to a short life of hard work in Siberia. This could happen for any reason whatsoever, and any reason at all was deemed a threat to those in power.

    We were Americans. We could speak our minds without fear. We could engage in behavior of any kind we wished, provided we did not run over the lives of others, without fear of being branded as a threat to the State. We gloried in that right and we told everyone we knew that it was the right to be who we were that we cherished and gloried in. And millions of people came to America every year to participate in that. In America, all people were equal under the law, and all could strive and succeed on the strength of their own merits.

    Between warrantless wiretapping, the needless suspension of Habeus Corpus, and the legalization of torture, most of the rights that Americans trumpeted as proof that we were the greatest country on earth have begun to drift away as if they were so much smoke. At the whim of the President, you can be spied on. At the whim of the President, that eavesdropping can lead to your kidnapping by police forces in the dead of night. At the whim of the President you can be interrogated by near-drowning and made to confess to whatever crimes you can think of. At the whim of the President you can vanish utterly from America that you knew.

    I decry the practice of torture because I as an American do not wish to be tortured, nor do I wish others to be tortured in my name. I decry the practice of holding prisoners without trial because I do not wish to be held without trial, nor do I wish others to be held without trial in my name, in some confused bid to preserve my "safety" or any illusion thereof. I decry the practice of spying on others without a warrant because I do not wish to be spied upon without oversight, nor do I wish for the Secret Police of our nation to have free reign to do the same in my name, in my country, in my America.

    Torture is wrong. Imprisonment without trial is wrong. Spying on citizens without oversight is wrong. It's all wrong. There is no saving it. I will see it ended or I will join my citizens to remove the government that practices it.

    If conservatives are going to bring out some canard about 9/11, or being safe from terrorists, let them know they can save themselves the trouble and shut up now. More people die of the flu each year, or in car accidents, than terrorism. In fact, between automobile deaths and flu deaths, they outnumber the casualties on 9/11 by an entire order of magnitude, times two, and then some. 3,000 people died on 9/11. ~20,000 die of the flu, and another ~40,000 in car accidents every year. I am supposed to give up everything that decent red-blooded Americans fought and died for in the Revolution, the Civil War, and WWII, in order to prevent the 1-in-20000 chance that I might die at the hands of a terrorist? I don't think so. Those who do advocate these "solutions" to terrorism are cowards and worse. My rights are not anyone's -- especially not George W. Bush's -- to sell out.

    Conservatives with guns often yammer about how liberals will pry their guns from their cold dead hands. They'll bleat on and on about how those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. Where are those conservatives when torture comes up? Where are they when the destruction of Habeus Corpus comes up? Where are they when Uncle Sam puts a bug in their phones? Do they suddenly get IBS when OBL is mentioned? I thought Conservatives were supposed to be the tough guys. I guess I was wrong. Show 'em a turban and all that tough talk goes running down their quivering legs.

    Opps. You just joined the terrorist sympathizer club, anon 1052. Welcome, but brace yourself for the flames. You will be told that you are calling 9-11 a mild cold, that you are supporting the rights of terrorists over Americans because you are a traitor, and that the wingers are glad you are posting here because it shows everyone how morally bankrupt and callous you are and will make them sure to vote Republican in November.

    Enjoy it. They poop out when their Doritos run out.

    A new euphemism for tying someone to a board, and dunking their head in water repreatedly so that they believe they are drowning, for keeping someone shackled in a room cooled to 50 degrees, pouring cold water over him repeatedly until he gets hypothermia, keeping him awake for 48 out of 55 days, or several of the methods used by the Soviets in the Gulag:

    Here it is from the Wall Street Journal:

    "being able to make life uncomfortable."

    And all these techniques used against people who haven't even been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime - just like the Soviet Union, whose buildings we coopted in Eastern Europe for our own torture.

    Great work!
    [url=http://phyaifiv.com/bbvx/wzyq.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://aywoeybp.com/zqpy/mxsa.html]Cool site[/url]

    Olbermann was commenting on how a great deal of intellegence that has been obtained through torture has proved to be false. There is the example of the Canadian man who was mistakenly sent to syria (the country of his birth but not his home) and tourtured for ten months. He reportedly claimed anything to end the torture even though non of his assertions were fact based. Bill had on a reporter. Facinating. However, he did not have on (at least in this instance) anyone from any intellegence agency to refute the idea that people will say anything to end torture, regardless of any shred of accuracy. if there is an emminent threat, and someone does envoke the actions of Jack Bauer and genuinely stops some terror threat, then, i believe, I would not complain. But sanctioning torture in everyday situations provides high risk of faulty information and the torture of innocent civilians. This is not a fictional television character who knows to only go after the bad guys in a black and white world. Jack Bauer is not the only individual who would be deciding when to torture ("tough" interrigation if you want, but crap by any name still smells the same). it would be everyday individuals, and our track record with abu ghraib along with extensive studies such as the Stanford experiments demonstrate that man is to flawed a creature to be given such abuse-able power over another. Much less, to convict an individual with statements made under such duress is below every principle upon which this country was created.

    Why do I think that Jack, Bruce, Otto, Heidi, Vincent, and Angie are going to back pushing Viagra and poker sites?