No matter your politics, watch this.
 

I don't care what your position is, I think everyone needs to watch this entire video. I know it's long. I don't post in this forum often and now I feel I need to.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/from/ET/

He really has put it out there. My God, can our country recover from this heinous period, and will history judge this entire presidency for what it really is? I'm almost in tears. I can't believe that I'm alive for this...that it's happening in my country...that I ignore it and hope it'll go away.

Is this how the Germans felt in the 30's?

If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.


-- Abraham Lincoln

If he were here, Lincoln would so whup Bush's ass.

Um, Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus and all sorts of civil rights in the name of national security. He may have talked a good game (and I admire him greatly) ... but he's hardly the antidote to the Bush presidency of constitutional shredding.

He still would have kicked his ass.

I'm disgusted, Mr Olberman said it all so well.:(

The Supreme Court told Lincoln he couldn't suspend Habeas Corpus.

Bush wants to rig the AG and Supreme Court to let him off the hook.

Maybe I'm just numb to the tone in general nowadays, but listening to this sounds like nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric to me. While some good points are made I'm sure, I tend to tune it out just as I did the Rush Limbaugh's and the like during the "criminal" Clinton presidency, as the right-wing types asserted. It has more to do with the tone and choice of language for me personally.

Belittling accomplished persons (regardless of your opinion of their politics) such as the former Attorney General with accusations of non-functioning brains does little to bolster ones point.

Nanny nanny poo poo is all I hear.

But that's just me. I know this kind of stuff works for a lot of people. Ironic I suppose, as I tend to be incredibly passionate about things.

In general I agree, but at some point the evidence that this administration is willfully and maliciously abusing its privilege piled up beyond a point where I care much for being civil about it. I think Olbermann's final point in this rant said it best. There really are only two possibilities at this point. Either Bush really is dumb enough to not be aware of what he's doing, or he is purposefully and arguably criminally architecting some seriously disgusting abuses of power. I'm thrilled with neither option and it's about time people start speaking up. Here we have yet another piece of evidence demonstrating the Presidents willingness to deliberately pick and choose his own version of reality to fit his pre-conceived objectives, truth be damned. This isn't one isolated incident, it's a repeated, blatant pattern underscored by his maniacal efforts to prevent all oversight and accountability in a government that's supposed to be built on oversight and accountability.

And then he has the gaul to send American citizens to fight and die in the name of his vaunted democratic ideals that he shows no practical signs of adhering to. And then he wonders why so many people doubt his intentions.

I don't really disagree with much that Olbermann said, I just can't help that whenever I listen to him I feel like I am listening to a polarity reversed Michael Savage.

However, I find him very compelling in written form. So it is just something about the way he talks. Whereas Michael Savage is a complete nutjob regardless of medium.

What saddens me the most is that, apparently, nobody on either side of the aisle has the backbone to stand up to this man and put a stop to this horrific abuse of power. One man shouldn't be allowed to disassemble everything this country stands for and yet, congress continues to rubber stamp his every whim. I'm disgusted - no, make that infuriated with these spineless bastards almost more than I am with the President himself. Our system was supposed to be able to counter a situation like this and it has failed miserably.

I think that much of the confusion surrounding this issue is that the name they chose makes it sound fun. Hey, kids - let's go waterboarding! It almost sounds like a Vans Warped tour side stage activity, sponsored by Mountain Dew.

Therefore, since it sounds like a hoot, I'm having trouble finding fault with it.
Now if they called it water torture, well, that has a whole different ring to it.

Semantics aside, I do think that there is a time and a place for everything.
If someone kidnaped a child or a thermo-nuclear device and is holding out on the 411, then I say, by all means, take them out for a nice day of water boarding.

Personally, they would have gotten more mileage out of a Nickelodeon-themed Sheik dunk tank with an American Idol phone-in remote dunk feature, but that's just my opinion.

And while I vehemently disagree with much of this admistration's policy, I also disagree with blanket dismissals of "playing by the rules."

No country - not a single one - follows any kind of rules, save the rule of the bottom line. There is no altruism here. Just protecting the system that gives us fossil fuel, no matter what the cost.

So we are all complicit by virtue of driving and consuming and pursuing leisure.
Excepting the Amish who churn their own butter and ride horsies, and the occasional self-sustaining back-woods off the grid militia.

But, yes...George has been very naughty indeed.

Boss Radio...

You give me the smiles.

I was listening to somebody on the radio yesterday who made a very interesting, and valid in my opinion, point:

America's relationship with waterboarding is about 100 years old. We used it in the Philippines in the Spanish American war. It was sometimes used in WWI and WWII. We courtmarshalled and convicted a soldier for doing it in Vietnam.

But throughout that entire history up until the Bush administration it was never questioned whether waterboarding is torture. It was accepted as fact that it was. What was discussed was whether it is ever appropriate to use torture. Teddy Roosevelt did not defend waterboarding by denying its nature, he defended it by saying it has a valid role.

You can disagree with that and argue about policy but the latter is an honest argument while the Bush administration's stance is a dodge, and a pretty stupid one at that.

Right or wrong, there is no excuse for this Administration to go unchecked as it currently is. We have checks and balances in place for a reason. Congress and the Supreme Court aren't supposed to be a "yes man" to the President.

Wow.....in just 30 years we have gone from debating whether or not a bomb that could kill a million people but leave all the buildings intact was immoral or not to whether or not waterboarding is torture.....

Say what you want but I think that's progress.

Not really. Considering that 30 years ago there was no question that waterboarding was torture. That sounds like regression.

Wow, non sequitur much?

Hrmm... I guess I didn't see it as a non sequitur, so much as I saw it as a musing on a theme.

I do, however, agree with Alex. It's torture. Agree with it or not, call it what it is and move on. I'm still giggling over Boss' post, imagining someone water boarding behind a speed boat.

So, so wrong... *giggle*

I very much see it as a non sequitor. Discussions of the use of waterboarding have no bearing on our stance as a society on use of nuclear weapons, and vice versa. I fail to see how condoning torture and suppressing open and honest debate by labeling dissent as tantamount to treason can be passed off as "progress" just because we aren't debating about some other topic that's unrelated to this one. Especially in light of the fact that said other topic is hardly even a closed topic. Note, for example, the reaction to Obama daring to say he wouldn't use nuclear weapons against Iran or Pakistan. Oh yeah, we've clearly progressed beyond that. Sure.

Not to mention that even if it isn't a non sequiter it still doesn't make sense. The morality of the neutron bomb has hardly been settled, it has simply been mooted by the fact that nobody has one (though four or five countries could build one if they wanted). Up until we dismantled our last ones at the end of the Bush I presidency they were still very much a topic of debate.

Kind of like saying that in Children of Men abortion is no longer a topic of debate so obviously progress has been made.

I'm so immune to most political rhetoric that I hear nothing but "blah blah blah waterboarding". I'm sort of somewhere in the zone of NM and BR but I have a picture that comes to mind.

That's you right, NA?

Hmm, I guess that the thread of thought was that they were/are generally considered instruments of war, regardless of agreement or disagreement on either topic (nuclear bombs and waterboarding).

Or I could just be jet lagged...

I was both very athletic AND politically astute in my younger days.

Are you the one on the left or right?

I don't remember. It was too long ago.

Nope, I'll guess she was driving the boat!

Sorry...guess I should have filled that in a little. This whole thing just struck me as somewhat silly....the end of America and this is 1930's Germany all over again and these are the darkest times theme just made me think that people may have forgotten what things were really like not so long ago.

I suppose my post would have been better suited to a debate on whether or not we should have a missile defense in Europe but sometimes I can't control what strikes me as apropro....even if it really isn't:D

"It could be worse" is not a valid argument in my eyes for allowing abuse of executive powers to go unchallenged. And, as stated above, it's not about the particulars of whether waterboarding is torture or not. It's about the lies, manipulation, and blatant efforts to silence dissenting voices.

I also think people have forgotten the past, but, as alluded to by Olberman's nod to Murrow, what they've forgotten is how easily the door to loss of freedoms can be opened with the guise of protection from an evil idea. It took someone with the courage of Murrow to wake everybody up to it then. Unfortunately Olbermann is not afforded to stature that Murrow had (unfortunate in the sense that it means he won't have as much impact, not in the sense that I think he should have the same stature as Murrow), nor was his commentary as much of a personal risk as Murrow's was, so there is little hope that the any significant change in social attitude will come of it. But I applaud him for helping the process of chipping away the facade of fear in hopes that someone will eventually hit the right spot and create an actual crack.

Where are John Sheridan and the Rangers when you need them? <sigh>

I don't think sleepyjeff was making an argument so much as he was simply remarking about an anecdotal historical parallel and I personally think his example is perfectly relevant. Imagine two civilizations side by side in the present day. One is embroiled in debate about whether or not nuking their neighbor is cool, while the other's biggest social conundrum is whether pouring water on somebody's face is too harsh. Who would frighten you the most, and who would you consider the "most civilized?" It's all relative, of course, but that's the thinking I came away with from his post.

My sentiments on the waterboarding debate are thus; is it torture? Regardless of my own views on it, if a guy like John McCain, who lived through horrific daily torture for six full years says that it's torture, then it's torture. The things he has lived through make waterboarding look like a leisurely trip through Small World, so I defer humbly to his expertice on the matter.

So, accepting that it is torture, do I believe that it is ever warranted? Yes, but only, and I stress only, in extremely dire, "there's a nuke going off in seven minutes and Osama bin Hidingit knows where it is" situations. If all we're looking for is "so-and-so lives in the second cave to the left and hangs out with a guy who knows a guy who goes to mosque with the sister of the janitor who cleans the office of Osama's lawyer" type info, then waterboarding is a bit extreme, as in "facing charges for doing it" extreme.

It's a great movie scene and a bit of a cliche now, but the courtroom scene in "A Few Good Men" comes to mind. We do need people out there doing the necessary things we won't or can't bring ourselves to do in order to keep us, and the free people of the world, safe. If some murderous extremist gets dunked a couple of times in order to save the lives of a bunch of innocent people, well, as horrible as it is he put himself in harm's way. Just as long as it isn't overused or applied inappropriately, it's another one of those neccesary evils and sadly, that's just life.

Then why are they trying to table resolutions that would go after the biggest wrongdoer of all time(I say that in jest).....Dick Cheney?

That't right........More Republicans voted for going ahead with impeachment proceedings against the VP then did Dems. Who would have ever thought that Kucinch's biggest ally in the war on the WhiteHouse would be Republicans:D

You know exactly why the Republicans voted that way. Not a single one would actually vote to impeach, it is nothing but parliamentary showmanship. If there were any actual strong support for impeachment they'd all be wailing about what a travesty it is, how it gives aid and comfort to the enemy, blah blah blah.

While that is true of the Republicans it does not explain away the inactions of the Majority of Dems. If it is their job to provide a check against a runaway WhiteHouse one must come to one of two conclusions: A) They are negligent in their duty or B) The WhiteHouse isn't running away.

This line of reasoning is like saying that because we have murderers to deal with, we shouldn't be horrified at things like dog fighting or spouse abuse. Bullsht. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity. A cover up is a cover up. A presidency that fires those that oppose their agenda and actually says those that think differently are not patriots...yes, this stuff is still vile and worthy of horror and action, even though our president isn't Hitler or Pol Pot.

I wonder what line a presidency will have to cross in order to get people really angry. This is just the stuff we're actually hearing about! I can't even imagine what else is going on.

Agreed. I do hope history judges the Democrats harshly for being silent during these atrocious years. This proves to me without a shadow of a doubt that the system is only as good as the people who work within it. They had the ability to disrupt things and they did not.

Too bad nobody votes in America anymore. This would be a time ripe for destroying the 2 party system if anyone was paying attention.

I kinda think the problem is we don't really have two parties anymore....more like two sides to one party.

I voted today btw.....No on two Statewide measures.

Checking the president does not necessarily equal impeachment of the vice president.

Which world would you rather live in though....the one where murder wasn't a big concern anymore so everyone was focused on dog fighting and spouse abuse or the one where murder was such a big problem that no one paid much attention to things like dog fighting and spouse abuse?

Fair enough.

Which world would you rather live in, one where there's an open theoretical debate over horrible possibility that hasn't happened and that most people in power are trying to prevent, or one where horrible things ARE happening and the people approving them and carrying them out are doing everything in their power to pretend it's not happening?

I see your point.

Wow, I remember when Mr. Olbermann was just an extremely annoying sports broadcaster.

That clip should be shown on EVERY network, EVERY streaming media outlet in the country.

Not at all. It is simply stating that things are not simply black and white, or bad is bad and good is good. To use your example, dog fighting and spousal abuse are two very bad things, but they pale in comparison to murder. Take Michael Vick. He fought dogs and very much deserves to be punished, but as severely as a murderer? Hardly.

No one is arguing that one is good simply because the other is worse. It is simply the case that one bad is more extreme than the other and therefore of bigger concern, and if the main current point of concern is the lesser of the two then things are not as horribly bad as in the past.

Except that the sleepyjeff's post didn't do that:

We've gone from a point in time where waterboarding being torture is a settled issue and the use of neutron bombs is up for debate to one where waterboarding being torture is apparently an unsettled issue and the use of neutron bombs is up for debate.

The U.S. no longer has nuetron bombs not because it became the official policy of our country that their use is untenable but because they were viewed as no longer having any deterrent value following the end of the Cold War and therefore were low hanging fruit in the arms reduction treaties. It is still official policy that use of neutron bombs is still warranted.

Also, it is a non sequitur to the extent that it contributes absolutely nothing. Anything bitched about now you could say "isn't it amazing how in just 140 years we've gone from killing each other over slavery to discussing the minutiae of torture.

To point out that at some point in the past things have been worse has no relevancy to whether the present is bad. Also, it presupposes that the theoretical use of neutron bombs is a greater evil than the actual use of waterboarding, which is not necessarily the case.

What about neutron boarding?

If you can get them to pay rent, go ahead.

What about the neutron dance?

I was thinkin' it, but I refrained. :)

sleepyjeff is suffucient.....I dropped the the ages ago.

As to your point I will concede that my observence does offer little to the actual argument at hand but still assert that we have progressed in a positive direction by the very fact that what we get all in a huff about these days is, in my most humble opinion, pretty tame compared to what we were concerned with just a generation or two ago.

Wheras in my opinion the failure to learn the lessons of McCarthyism shows we've progressed very little at all over a few generations.

Except that it certainly did. You may not see it that way, but I do.

Again, your opinion. I think it contributes just fine in that it is an interesting point and good food for thought. And I am sorry that you do not see progress simply because we have not reached a utopia, but that doesn't mean that it is not here. You say that it is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant that we are no longer killing each other over slavery. I say that these are both clear signs that we have progressed as a society. But then, I'm not a pessimist nor do I have to be overly critical and dismissive of society in order to feel intellectually significant.

It doesn't presuppose anything. Pouring water over a bad guys face until he starts sputtering is nowhere near as severe or horrific as killing hundreds or even thousands of innocent people with nuclear radiation. As I said earlier, the world is not black and white and bad doesn't just equal bad. There are measures of severity. If there weren't we'd either electrocute shoplifters or give rapists a $50 fine.

Aww, thanks!
Just trying to lighten the tone and all.

Who says we haven't? Who is being hunted down? Who is being blacklisted for their political beliefs? What "scare" are we being pushed into believing? Or are you implying that because Bush, who may be the President but is still one person, somehow represents and is indicative of the actions and beliefs of our nation's citizens as a whole? If so, I would disagree. The very fact that there is so much public debate and vocal opposition to his actions shows that McCarthyism is dead. Bush may be ignorant, but that doesn't mean the whole country is, and his firing of one person hardly demonstrates that McCarthyism is alive and well.

Where the heck did I deny that progress has been made or that the world is black and white, or that there aren't levels of severity.

All I'm saying is that whether there have been worse things in the past has absolutely nothing to do with how bad something else is. Rape is not less of a bad thing because at some point in the past we engaged in human sacrifice. All that changes is the prioritization of which bad things get the most attention. Yes, in a world where we are simultaneously dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians and waterboarding, the former is what you stop first. But that doesn't make the waterboarding any less bad, just less of a priority.

Yes, it is a good thing if an issue gets resolved allowing us to move to the next item on the list. But that doesn't diminish the importance of that next item.

(And again, as was my original response, the specific example provided by sleepyjeff is not one where any actual progress has been made. The moral questions about the neutron bomb remain open and unanswered and not irrelevant since our previous possession of them and stated willingness to use them in certain situations has contributed to widespread Arabic conspiracy theories that we have, in fact, used them; particularly in the first Gulf War.)

And all of that is relatively a side discussion because the charge by Olbermann is not that the administration is using waterboarding. Everybody acknowledges that the administration is using it. That is why Mukasey couldn't answer the question, saying what everybody knows would open us up to war crime prosecutions. I'd say that when you're having to hedge to avoid war crime charges, then we've gone down a bad path (but no, not as bad as the Holocaust). And worse, per Olbermann's view, is that the administration is not only using torture when they know it isn't reliable but using it because they know it is not reliable and will provide the tool by which we are manipulated.

That, if you accept the argument, is the great threat and the big evil in question. But there was once a time we ate the flesh of our enemies to gain their powers, so things really aren't that bad.

Harlan Ellison once said that he always thought of his body as something solid, like a potato, until his bypass operation, which opened his eyes to the one billion little things that delicately held him together.

In much the same way, I think that as each successive generation learns and more about the shortcomings and sees more of the failures of their elected officials (now unfolding in REAL TIME in the blogosphere) and the uneasy and awkward position that we find ourselves in at the very tippy top of the world food chain, we find it all too tempting to blame the government, and they're an easy target, just because they are sad, stupid, self-absorbed and utterly incompetent. And we put them there...

The mess the world is in right now is bigger than Bush - it existed before he took office, though he and his merry men quickly accelerated it - and it isn't going to magically all get better once there's a new administration. We are on a one way track unless this country finds a new way to hold hands and play nice with the other superpowers and stop bickering over stupid things that really don't matter. There needs to be a real international plan to save the planet and all the nice animals that we're driving to extinction, or we are sadly doomed to extinction, like the giant, talking, highly intelligent but ill-tempered amphibians who invented dentistry, public transportation and moisturizing lotion while they ruled the planet long before we ever got here..

Our only hope may be MAGNIFICATION.

Heehee, public mojo to Boss Radio for some thought and laugh provoking contributions.

Thank you, ISM.

Right back at ya!