I saw The Battle Of Algiers recently for the first time. Then I watched it twice more. It may be the most remarkable piece of filmmaking I’ve ever seen. It should be far better known than it is.

Amen to that – Great post.

dr nobody @
1

I saw The Battle Of Algiers recently for the first time. Then I watched it twice more. It may be the most remarkable piece of filmmaking I’ve ever seen. It should be far better known than it is.

It IS a remarkable movie. Could a movie like that be done by a Spielberg, here, now? Syriana was pretty good, but it doesn’t have the impact of BofA.

I think it was Larry Johnson (it may have been someone else, so forgive me) who said that the best way to disabuse an audience of torture is to ask who among them is prepared to cut off a prisoner’s fingers and toes one by one with poultry shears. He said, that’s how it works. He said he usually didn’t get any takers.

She’s just trying to play tough, no one told her we need to make americans start thinking based on merits and not based on toughness

Steve- thanks for the great post. I couldn’t agree more. The idea that torture is in anyway appropriate or useful is upside down thinking.

I know Hillary was trying to sound resolute, but sounded weak instead.

Democrats need to stop worrying about looking tough on terror and start worrying about being tough on Republicans.

Wow. Well said!

Her mindset would have her dropping nuclear weaponry to “pre-empt” attacks from perceived enemies to boot.

No thanks Mrs. Clinton, get out of Stockholm.

-GSD

Hillary is completely and totally wrong…

We cannot sell our souls over and over, and any politician or “leader” who makes exceptions is dead wrong.

This is among the reasons I could never vote for Hillary; when I heard this the other day I recoiled even farther from her.

Thanks Steve, for bringing this to light.

My dad was an interrogator in WWII. Torture wasn’t an issue, but his superiors trained him to shout and belittle, which he, correctly, judged counterproductive. He found, with time and experience, that treating the prisoners he interrogated with respect, decency and shrewdness consistently yielded good intelligence.

I’ve read accounts of modern day agents, confirming my dad’s take: you get good intelligence only by convincing the prisoner that his best option is to cooperate… and decent treatment is an essential part of that persuasive process.

I suspect prosecutors like Christy would confirm that this is also how you get defendants to flip.

Everyone knows the director of Battle Of Algiers just died a couple of days ago, right?

Unfortunately, torture does work. That is why it has survived as a tactic. Oh, it doesn’t work for obtaining any specific information, nor does it work in any way toward ‘flipping’ intelligence sources. The single use of torture, for which it is supremely effective, is to instil fear in a population.
That is why it is now, and was under Saddam, avery useful tool in Iraq.
To defend it as an intelligence-gathering method is ignorant and probably deceitful.

angie @ 10

Hillary is completely and totally wrong…

We cannot sell our souls over and over, and any politician or “leader” who makes exceptions is dead wrong.

This is among the reasons I could never vote for Hillary; when I heard this the other day I recoiled even farther from her.

Thanks Steve, for bringing this to light.

Democrats never look so weak as when they are trying to look tough.

Hillary Clinton’s views on war, torture and the Middle East vs. John McCain’s views on war, torture and the Middle East? God help us.

percy @ 11

My dad was an interrogator in WWII. Torture wasn’t an issue, but his superiors trained him to shout and belittle, which he, correctly, judged counterproductive. He found, with time and experience, that treating the prisoners he interrogated with respect, decency and shrewdness consistently yielded good intelligence.

I’ve read accounts of modern day agents, confirming my dad’s take: you get good intelligence only by convincing the prisoner that his best option is to cooperate… and decent treatment is an essential part of that persuasive process.

I suspect prosecutors like Christy would confirm that this is also how you get defendants to flip.

Percy- thanks for that great comment. That is what I meant by upside- down thinking, but I didn’t have the info to back it up. What you say rings so true.

No matter what you did, the terrorist could simply buy time with pain and then the attack happens. You doubt that, you haven’t seen much football played.

Pain isn’t how you break someone, fear is, hopelessness is.

Knut Wicksell @ 4

I think it was Larry Johnson (it may have been someone else, so forgive me) who said that the best way to disabuse an audience of torture is to ask who among them is prepared to cut off a prisoner’s fingers and toes one by one with poultry shears. He said, that’s how it works. He said he usually didn’t get any takers.

This illustrates not only the horror of torture, but its capacity to yield bad information. Someone starts snipping off my fingers and I will tell them whatever I think they want to hear.

percy @ 11

My dad was an interrogator in WWII. Torture wasn’t an issue, but his superiors trained him to shout and belittle, which he, correctly, judged counterproductive. He found, with time and experience, that treating the prisoners he interrogated with respect, decency and shrewdness consistently yielded good intelligence.

I’ve read accounts of modern day agents, confirming my dad’s take: you get good intelligence only by convincing the prisoner that his best option is to cooperate… and decent treatment is an essential part of that persuasive process.

I suspect prosecutors like Christy would confirm that this is also how you get defendants to flip.

Yes, I can confirm that

Knut Wicksell @
4

I think it was Larry Johnson (it may have been someone else, so forgive me) who said that the best way to disabuse an audience of torture is to ask who among them is prepared to cut off a prisoner’s fingers and toes one by one with poultry shears. He said, that’s how it works. He said he usually didn’t get any takers.

Guess he wasn’t talking to Republican audiences…

Eli @
12

Everyone knows the director of Battle Of Algiers just died a couple of days ago, right?

I did not know that.

It’s an amazing, gut-wrenching movie and I walked out thinking that there were many who would not draw the same conclusion about torture from that film that I did. Nonetheless I think the filmmakers’ intent more closely mirrored my own response than, say, the tough talking paintball warriors of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

lizard @ 13

Unfortunately, torture does work. That is why it has survived as a tactic. Oh, it doesn’t work for obtaining any specific information, nor does it work in any way toward ‘flipping’ intelligence sources. The single use of torture, for which it is supremely effective, is to instil fear in a population.
That is why it is now, and was under Saddam, avery useful tool in Iraq.
To defend it as an intelligence-gathering method is ignorant and probably deceitful.

Yes, thank you for making that distinction between instilling fear in a population, and intelligence gathering. I doubt that Mrs. Clinton thought it through that carefully, however.

lizard @ 13

Unfortunately, torture does work. That is why it has survived as a tactic. Oh, it doesn’t work for obtaining any specific information, nor does it work in any way toward ‘flipping’ intelligence sources. The single use of torture, for which it is supremely effective, is to instil fear in a population.
That is why it is now, and was under Saddam, avery useful tool in Iraq.
To defend it as an intelligence-gathering method is ignorant and probably deceitful.

Torture is the perfect tactic for the Bush administration because it yields precisely the information the interrogator wants to hear. The Bushies have never been interested in anything else.

Tried to go for sort of a positive post again today, rather than railing against the religious right hypocrites who held “Liberty Sunday” today so that thay could rant about the “gay agenda”. Another quote from the article in Yes Magazine:

Changing the prevailing stories in the United States may be easier to accomplish than we might think. The apparent political divisions notwithstanding, U.S. polling data reveal a startling degree of consensus on key issues. Eighty-three percent of Americans believe that as a society the United States is focused on the wrong priorities. Supermajorities want to see greater priority given to children, family, community, and a healthy environment. Americans also want a world that puts people ahead of profits, spiritual values ahead of financial values, and international cooperation ahead of international domination. These Earth Community values are in fact widely shared by both conservatives and liberals.

http://howardempowered.blogspot.com/

Ugh. I could sit though Andrew Sullivan for an hour, but five minutes of Giuliani (C-Span) is too much. Gotta get up and turn the television off.

The thought of Senator Clinton in the WH, considering her views on Iraq, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is beyond baffling.

Hillary’s gonna try to be Iron Lady II — she’ll go all Margaret Thatcher in the next 18 months, talk tough, and scare off anybody who might have supported her Presidential bid, while gaining no new adherents.

Meanwhile, this torture discussion W has brought us will continue to degrade public discourse, as well as our moral authority in the world.

Hillary, sadly, must feel that as a woman she must never appear to be what she thinks is weak. She might be correct that there is a set of voters that are watching for such weakness, even semi-consciously. The really sad part of this is that I think that this effort will make it all but impossible to get the nomination because she has alienated the majority of democratic Party activists to the point that even if she squeaks into the nomination she will have few ground troops working with enthusiasm.

That, and her negative image amongst conservatives, whom she will motivate very strongly, wrecks her chances of victory. For that reason I hope against hope that someone else will get the nomination.

Hi Steve,

Yes, could not agree more. Torture is not ‘tough’, is not practical, is not moral, does not work. The only reason for torture is that it’s ‘fun’. God help us all.

I am from Michigan (orig, now in Canada). Sen Debbie Stabenow is one of the Democratic Senators who voted for this horror of a bill. She’d never acted all that DINO-ish before, but clearly she can’t be trusted.

lizard (above) is right

Torture is , simply put, an effective method of terrorism.
What has sadly happened to our nation, is that we have lost our moral compass.
We have allowed weak leaders to lower the bar.

Only now is the public beginning to realize that their fears of otherness – be it Islam, homosexuality or immigrants, have been cynically exploited by power hungry thieves.

This awakening is too slow and late in coming for the hundreds of thousand dead and millions injured and damaged by our great nation’s misguided focus.

We have been busy waging war and de-stabilizing an entire region to deal with the threat of a couple thousand radicals without a country.

In the mean time we have been ineffective dealing with real threats of nature and the PRNK.

Next time someone talks to you about the threat of Mexican immigration, tell tehm the most dangerous family ever to move to Texas was the Bush family…

Valley Girl @ 22

lizard @ 13

Unfortunately, torture does work. That is why it has survived as a tactic. Oh, it doesn’t work for obtaining any specific information, nor does it work in any way toward ‘flipping’ intelligence sources. The single use of torture, for which it is supremely effective, is to instil fear in a population.
That is why it is now, and was under Saddam, avery useful tool in Iraq.
To defend it as an intelligence-gathering method is ignorant and probably deceitful.

Yes, thank you for making that distinction between instilling fear in a population, and intelligence gathering. I doubt that Mrs. Clinton thought it through that carefully, however.

Absolutely spot on. It is to control the civilian population, that is why it is not kept secret.

HotFlash @ 29

Hi Steve,

Yes, could not agree more. Torture is not ‘tough’, is not practical, is not moral, does not work. The only reason for torture is that it’s ‘fun’. God help us all.

In addition to yielding what the administration wants to hear, torture is also punitive. It is collective vengeance against the Muslim world from whence the terrorists came. No matter if the torturees are not from the actual terrorist demographic.

I’ve heard that in many local police departments, part of the training they receive when being certified for using tasers is the requirement that the officers themselves get tasered once, so they understand how the weapon works and feels.

I don’t think that we’d be all that far off-base by asking our elected officials to undergo a bit of torture before approving its use.

It might even help them reconsider their careless way of endorsing it.

1,305 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Gilliard:

“I don’t think Hillary Clinton is amoral. She thinks torture may save innocent life.”

I’m sorry Steve but that is naive bullshit…Mrs. Clinton HAS thought it through and her statement on torture provides a Chrystal clear look at her moral make-up, and the vision ain’t pretty.

There is nuthin’ this woman says that is not calculated and vetted through a mind that is completely uncluttered with any moral reservation. Mrs. Clinton is the socially acceptable, mainline corporatist who presents herself to the corporate oligarchy as an alternative to radical Bush fascism…she offers “fascism with a human face”, the kinda noblesse oblige with which the Rockefellers and the rest of the old money are comfortable.

Please Steve, don’t hurt yerself tryin’ ta create an image of this woman that makes her appear to have a moral pulse…she’s not only amoral, she’s much more dangerous than Caligubush…she is INTELLIGENT and amoral.

KEEP THE FAITH AND GET THAT EQUIVOCATING BULLSHIT OUTTA MY YARD!!!

looseheadprop @
17

No matter what you did, the terrorist could simply buy time with pain and then the attack happens. You doubt that, you haven’t seen much football played.

Pain isn’t how you break someone, fear is, hopelessness is.

That would explain the latest polling numbers and the position of the Republican Party in those same polls.

-GSD

Connecticut Bob:

Yes, you are correct. Many departments include at least one person from the class to be tasered. Just as we were also required to be exposed to tear gas as a part of the training process. Nothing like taking off the gas mask in a warehouse filled with tear gas and trying to make to the door before having to breath.

Hillary is Big Dog without the charisma, and with more inclination to talk political trash. She is also, if she gets the nomination, smoking, crsipy, deep-charcoal toast. A Hillary nomination would be a gift to Karl Rove (which is why he now and then says she’d be “formidable.”)

The first woman president of the US will be a Republican, in the mold of Thatcher, or Christie Todd Whitman.

Thanks Steve, great post.

Hillary approves of “torture in limited circumstances”. Well, of course, she does. It’s simple triangulation. Bush really likes torture. So Hillary put herself between him and her humanity: She only kind of likes torture. With Hillary, it’s all so easy. You don’t have worry about convictions. Just draw the lines, one side, two sides, Hillary’s side.

Norske- looks like neither you nor I are great fans of Mrs. Clinton. But I guess we figured that out a long long time back. If it comes to a vote between Hill and a republican (same choice, different name) I will vote third party.

The reason Hillary can believe in the ticking bomb excuse for torture is that she has never thought it through

No. The reason is that she has thought it through, but only politically, and only on the most shallow basis. This makes Hillary no better than the current occupant of the WH in that everything is calculated from a political point of view, with no regard for what is good, moral or best for the country.

That is why she must be opposed.

Senator Clinton needs to decide if she wants the killing in Iraq to continue (in view of the civil war going on there) with no end in sight, or doesn’t she. This is not a difficult question.

I saw Bill Clinton talk about the “ticking time bomb” exception” on Olbermann a few wks ago.

There is a well-known case in Germany in which a man kidnapped a young girl, buried her, was arrested, the cop tortured him to reveal where she was, he talked, the girl was saved, and the cop confessed what he had done immediately. He went to trial and he was then acquitted.

He recognized that he had done a horrible thing, he accepted responsibility.

I myself agree with Larry Johnson here, once you begin to torture for “exigent circumstances” well, the exigent circumstances keep getting lowered and lowered until it’s people brought in during mass sweeps (like Abu Ghraib; what was it, 90% had nothing to do with anything and were already released by the time the pictures were published?).

I know if somebody kidnapped my kid and they were set to die, I probably COULD get medieval on their rumps; I also know we cannot have a POLICY which accepts this as OK because more and MORE will be OK as time goes on.

So I don’t know if HRC was talking about circumstances like the German policeman and it just came out poorly, if the newspaper put it together poorly (I would like to watch this on C-Span which sometimes shows editorial board meetings with politicians) or if she is backing down from her strong comments from September AGAINST torture.

Eva

Robert Paehlke @ 28

Hillary, sadly, must feel that as a woman she must never appear to be what she thinks is weak. She might be correct that there is a set of voters that are watching for such weakness, even semi-consciously. The really sad part of this is that I think that this effort will make it all but impossible to get the nomination because she has alienated the majority of democratic Party activists to the point that even if she squeaks into the nomination she will have few ground troops working with enthusiasm.

That, and her negative image amongst conservatives, whom she will motivate very strongly, wrecks her chances of victory. For that reason I hope against hope that someone else will get the nomination.

I’ve not noticed that the guys are any better. Sheeze, you’d think that if more than half of the population is against the war, and that would probably not be the group that will be voting Republican, ie ‘available’ votes, that the Democrats could do well by providing the anti-war folks with somebody to vote for? In business we call that a ‘market lack’, it is kinda like striking gold. Instead we get political cola wars; like Coke vs Pepsi, the Democrats are fighting ferociously to be indistinguishable from Republicans.

Torture isn’t a tactical debate, it is a moral one.

Well said. Still, I’m looking for a day when torture is no kind of debate at all, but simply a moral truism: “Torture is wrong. Period.”

Usually, the wages of war was a three day sacking of the conquered village. The soldiers, as part of their pay, got three days to rape, pillage and plunder.

I think it was Constantinople that was particularly difficult, and the soldiers demanded, and got, five days to “blow off steam.”

Now, to enlightened and advanced societies, such practices are barbaric and repugnant. The idea is, we have advanced beyond this, hence the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, that try to spell out proper behavior even in war time.

And now the barbarians are not at the gate, but stalking the halls of power.

Wealth and privilege have distorted their world-view as they have never had to emotionally mature past the third-grade sandbox bully mentality. They have always got their way. Spoiled brats, pulling wings off butterflies, frying ants with magnifying glasses, blowing up frogs with firecrackers, and now, cold cell, long time standing.

Might makes right, even if they are wrong, and nobody has ever heard them admit an error.

Morris Sheppard @ 41

The reason Hillary can believe in the ticking bomb excuse for torture is that she has never thought it through

No. The reason is that she has thought it through, but only politically, and only on the most shallow basis. This makes Hillary no better than the current occupant of the WH in that everything is calculated from a political point of view, with no regard for what is good, moral or best for the country.

That is why she must be opposed.

Hear, hear! Carter, sadly underappreciated, is the only Pres. I have seen who had a “moral compass” and not a “political compass”. So depressing.

At this point, if it comes to McCain or Clinton in 2008, I will vote Hillary. But I sure won’t like it. Of course things are fluid. I might change my mind. But I won’t vote for McCain under any circumstance.

There are so many better Democratic candidates than the Hill.

Connecticut Bob @ 33

I’ve heard that in many local police departments, part of the training they receive when being certified for using tasers is the requirement that the officers themselves get tasered once, so they understand how the weapon works and feels.
.

I wonder if Jane was tasered before she started in on TRex?

Torture is not about the kind of person the victim is. Torture is about the kind of person the torturer is.

Now we know what kind of person Senator Clinton is.

Eva @43

The really important part:

the cop confessed what he had done immediately. He went to trial and he was then acquitted

Torture must be illegal. It must not be policy. If there ever is a circumstance where it would actually prove useful then let the torturer face the consequences. If what he did was right, under the circumstances, that will be understood and he will be acquitted.

TeddySanFran @
27

Hillary’s gonna try to be Iron Lady II — she’ll go all Margaret Thatcher in the next 18 months, talk tough, and scare off anybody who might have supported her Presidential bid, while gaining no new adherents.

Meanwhile, this torture discussion W has brought us will continue to degrade public discourse, as well as our moral authority in the world.

I was just going to make the Thatcher comparison

I don’t know why women thinks this kind of dick-swinging makes them seem tough. It’s tough to vote in an act of conscience — like Barbara Lee did — when you know it’s only going to bring vilification down on your head, and you do it anyway.

That’s true strength. The rest of it is just so much bullshit posturing.

HotFlash @ 29

Yes, could not agree more. Torture is not ‘tough’, is not practical, is not moral, does not work. The only reason for torture is that it’s ‘fun’. God help us all.

And even that “reason” only works if you’re suffering from a serious psychiatric disorder to start with. When the notion of legalizing torture sends us running to psychiatrists rather than politicians, we will have learned.

Oilfieldguy @ 46

Usually, the wages of war was a three day sacking of the conquered village. The soldiers, as part of their pay, got three days to rape, pillage and plunder.

I think it was Constantinople that was particularly difficult, and the soldiers demanded, and got, five days to “blow off steam.”

Now, to enlightened and advanced societies, such practices are barbaric and repugnant. The idea is, we have advanced beyond this, hence the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, that try to spell out proper behavior even in war time.

And now the barbarians are not at the gate, but stalking the halls of power.

Wealth and privilege have distorted their world-view as they have never had to emotionally mature past the third-grade sandbox bully mentality. They have always got their way. Spoiled brats, pulling wings off butterflies, frying ants with magnifying glasses, blowing up frogs with firecrackers, and now, cold cell, long time standing.

Might makes right, even if they are wrong, and nobody has ever heard them admit an error.

That’s an amazing comment, OFG. Really well said.

Hillary is the ticking time bomb

Hillary Clinton told the New York Daily News editorial board that “she approved of torture in limited circumstances.”

Not incidentally, Hillary Clinton just lost my vote forever. Some things are just wrong. Period.

One of the most fascinating subjects at fdl is Hillary Clinton. When I started commenting here 14 months ago, she came up mostly in a positive light. A few of us already had a dim view of her at the time. A combination of carefully contrived statements like her most recent on torture and, I guess, the course here slowly edging a half compass point at a time toward the left has changed that. The real left is on a collision course with Hillary Clinton at this stage.

Her views on the war, on Israel and a few other international issues put her far closer to W than to most firepups.

Oilfieldguy @ 46

Usually, the wages of war was a three day sacking of the conquered village. The soldiers, as part of their pay, got three days to rape, pillage and plunder.

“it takes a pillage”

Jane Hamsher @ 52

TeddySanFran @
27

Hillary’s gonna try to be Iron Lady II — she’ll go all Margaret Thatcher in the next 18 months, talk tough, and scare off anybody who might have supported her Presidential bid, while gaining no new adherents.

Meanwhile, this torture discussion W has brought us will continue to degrade public discourse, as well as our moral authority in the world.

I was just going to make the Thatcher comparison

I don’t know why women thinks this kind of dick-swinging makes them seem tough. It’s tough to vote in an act of conscience — like Barbara Lee did — when you know it’s only going to bring vilification down on your head, and you do it anyway.

That’s true strength. The rest of it is just so much bullshit posturing.

Jane!! You are en forme! I agree to the nth. Thanks for that great link. That is true strength.

TeddySanFran @ 27

Hillary’s gonna try to be Iron Lady II — she’ll go all Margaret Thatcher in the next 18 months, talk tough, and scare off anybody who might have supported her Presidential bid, while gaining no new adherents.

And all we really need to do is ask the Brits whether Iron Lady I was worth it. I don’t know many Maggie fans.

Shoot. Hillary is a lightening rod even in her own party. This upcoming presidential election is but 24 short months away. We really, really need to decide on a better candidate than Clinton.

Oh, and most of the people in Great Britain don’t like Maggie Thatcher (Reagan’s lap-dog) one bit. That’s the Iron Lady’s legacy.

Ed*ard Teller @ 57

One of the most fascinating subjects at fdl is Hillary Clinton. When I started commenting here 14 months ago, she came up mostly in a positive light. A few of us already had a dim view of her at the time. A combination of carefully contrived statements like her most recent on torture and, I guess, the course here slowly edging a half compass point at a time toward the left has changed that. The real left is on a collision course with Hillary Clinton at this stage.

Her views on the war, on Israel and a few other international issues put her far closer to W than to most firepups.

ET- well, I was here just a little before you, and trust me, I never made a positive comment. But, on some issues, I don’t read, and read, and wait and decide. I just trust my intuition and my gut. It’s more of a gut thing for me with Hill. (p.s. just like it was with “should we invade Iraq. I knew where I stood from the get go.)

If only more women were pro-torture, the world would be a better place.

Bzzzz…wrong again.

Also, looks like the Israeli coporate warmongers are a rotten bunch too.

An Israeli Sherwood.

-GSD

just saw this front pager at Salon.com:

Hillary is us

Feminists want to see in Hillary Rodham Clinton what they want to see in themselves. With expectations so high, can the potential presidential candidate do anything but let women down?

By Rebecca Traister

EvilDrPuma @ 53

HotFlash @ 29

Yes, could not agree more. Torture is not ‘tough’, is not practical, is not moral, does not work. The only reason for torture is that it’s ‘fun’. God help us all.

And even that “reason” only works if you’re suffering from a serious psychiatric disorder to start with. When the notion of legalizing torture sends us running to psychiatrists rather than politicians, we will have learned.

But torture is fun! Trust me. I used to love blowing up frogs and torturing cats when I was younger, and it was a gas.

Oh, wait, I got confused. That was Bush and Frist, not me. Maybe that’s why I never became a politician.

punaise @ 64

just saw this front pager at Salon.com:

Hillary is us

Feminists want to see in Hillary Rodham Clinton what they want to see in themselves. With expectations so high, can the potential presidential candidate do anything but let women down?

By Rebecca Traister

Absolutely. She can let men down, too.

punaise @ 64

just saw this front pager at Salon.com:

Hillary is us

Feminists want to see in Hillary Rodham Clinton what they want to see in themselves. With expectations so high, can the potential presidential candidate do anything but let women down?

By Rebecca Traister

Nonsense. The entire notion that “feminists” are a cookie-cutter army is absurd–and I would say prejudicial in and of itself, even if the person making the statement identifies her/himself as a feminist.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 61

Shoot. Hillary is a lightening rod even in her own party. This upcoming presidential election is but 24 short months away. We really, really need to decide on a better candidate than Clinton.

Oh, and most of the people in Great Britain don’t like Maggie Thatcher (Reagan’s lap-dog) one bit. That’s the Iron Lady’s legacy.

Yes, but who? If you could choose the Dem nominee for 08, who would it be?

Morris Sheppard @ 65

But torture is fun! Trust me. I used to love blowing up frogs and torturing cats when I was younger, and it was a gas.

Oh, wait, I got confused. That was Bush and Frist, not me. Maybe that’s why I never became a politician.

I remember once pulling the legs off a beetle. I might have been all of nine or ten. I felt so lousy about it when I came to my senses that I had to give the bug a decent burial.

That’s the difference between me and Bush or Frist.

EvilDrPuma @ 67

punaise @ 64

just saw this front pager at Salon.com:

Hillary is us

Feminists want to see in Hillary Rodham Clinton what they want to see in themselves. With expectations so high, can the potential presidential candidate do anything but let women down?

By Rebecca Traister

Nonsense. The entire notion that “feminists” are a cookie-cutter army is absurd–and I would say prejudicial in and of itself, even if the person making the statement identifies her/himself as a feminist.

partway through reading what appears to be a mediocre article, I nevertheless find this:

Earlier this year, author and filmmaker Nora Ephron, who covered the nomination of Shirley Chisholm for president in 1972, wrote that Clinton has “as much authenticity as Naugahyde.”

Morris Sheppard @ 51

Eva @43

The really important part:

the cop confessed what he had done immediately. He went to trial and he was then acquitted

Torture must be illegal. It must not be policy. If there ever is a circumstance where it would actually prove useful then let the torturer face the consequences. If what he did was right, under the circumstances, that will be understood and he will be acquitted.

Exactly so. Well said!

sidebar to TeddySanFran–I left a response to your comment at the end of the last thread.

NumberFour @ 68

Oklahoma kiddo @ 61

Shoot. Hillary is a lightening rod even in her own party. This upcoming presidential election is but 24 short months away. We really, really need to decide on a better candidate than Clinton.

Oh, and most of the people in Great Britain don’t like Maggie Thatcher (Reagan’s lap-dog) one bit. That’s the Iron Lady’s legacy.

Yes, but who? If you could choose the Dem nominee for 08, who would it be?

First choice Gore, second choice Clark. After that it gets hazy. Maybe Edwards, maybe Feingold.

fyi – Great White Father Ronald Reagan directed flaming liberal Jean Kirkpatrick to sign United Nations Convention Against Torture in 88:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..st_Torture

Signatories:
http://www.ohchr.org/english/c…..tion/9.htm

it seemed like a no-brainer at the time . . .

punaise @ 70

partway through reading what appears to be a mediocre article, I nevertheless find this:

Earlier this year, author and filmmaker Nora Ephron, who covered the nomination of Shirley Chisholm for president in 1972, wrote that Clinton has “as much authenticity as Naugahyde.”

Okay, I agree with that.

cbl @ 73

it seemed like a no-brainer at the time . . .

Apparently so–we all know what Reagan had going on upstairs, or not. I would guess that Kirkpatrick didn’t really need his instructions, though.

torch her.

(rhetorically speaking, of course. we don’t need no stinking martyrs)

did I mention that I’m not on the HRC bandwagon?

NumberFour@68

Clark Edwards
Edwards Clark

Valley Girl @
59

Jane Hamsher @ 52

TeddySanFran @
27

Hillary’s gonna try to be Iron Lady II — she’ll go all Margaret Thatcher in the next 18 months, talk tough, and scare off anybody who might have supported her Presidential bid, while gaining no new adherents.

Meanwhile, this torture discussion W has brought us will continue to degrade public discourse, as well as our moral authority in the world.

I was just going to make the Thatcher comparison

I don’t know why women thinks this kind of dick-swinging makes them seem tough. It’s tough to vote in an act of conscience — like Barbara Lee did — when you know it’s only going to bring vilification down on your head, and you do it anyway.

That’s true strength. The rest of it is just so much bullshit posturing.

Jane!! You are en forme! I agree to the nth. Thanks for that great link. That is true strength.

I remember when she made her speech on the vote. It was awe-inspiring. Right after 9/11. That was true courage. Even my right wing cousins in Tennessee (who I was visiting at the time) who hated her for it had to admit that it took some real nerve to cast that vote at that time.

Prairie Sunshine @ 77

NumberFour@68

Clark Edwards
Edwards Clark

Hamsher / Hardin Smith
Hardin Smith / Hamsher

If Democrats, (moderates, left, and progressive types) don’t get busy and start supporting an alternative with money etc., Clinton is going to bag the nomination. That is, if the Senator hasn’t already done so. There really is no time to waste. Do we want to be sitting here, say five years hence bemoaning the Iraq War and God only knows what other war follies that we may be into?

Punaise- thanks for the link. Another quote:

“So maybe that’s it. She’s a Democrat. She’s a woman. So she’s not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.”

I read the article. And, like Hillary, it is a masterpiece of triangulation. Hillary is no Democrat. And, screw the “feminist” meme. That is really, really such an insulting part of the article.

Speaking of political courage, the NYT editorial today endrosed Senator Clinton — for Senator — but then wondered whether she would ever show the kind of political courage that might make her a decent President.

Eli, last I heard Gore had ruled out a run in 08. Any news on that front?

If I thought Feingold had a real shot, I’d campaign for him nonstop from now to the election.

This would be a great late nite thread – who would you pick, if you could pick…

Yes, but who? If you could choose the Dem nominee for 08, who would it be?

First choice Gore, second choice Clark. After that it gets hazy. Maybe Edwards, maybe Feingold.

If Gore does run but goes boring I’d want to see him with someone more lively like Edwards or Feingold. If he keeps his rage then I’d temper him with Clark but … I’m not crazy about Clark and I’m not sure why. Maybe cause he got into the race for 5 minutes and then left. No good byes, no thank you for a lovely evening – nothing.

Of course she’s wrong, but why would she say such a thing

for the same reason she says everything that makes our collective head explode – to ensure any potential Dem opponents have zero wiggle room other than further right – effective ?? ask Mark Warner

Valley Girl @ 81

Punaise- thanks for the link. Another quote:

“So maybe that’s it. She’s a Democrat. She’s a woman. So she’s not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.”

I read the article. And, like Hillary, it is a masterpiece of triangulation. Hillary is no Democrat. And, screw the “feminist” meme. That is really, really such an insulting part of the article.

Hillary would be considerably better than whoever the Republicans nominate.

But that’s not saying much.

I read somwhere that Colin Powell showed Battle of Algiers to a bunch of pentagon folks just before going into Iraq, warning them that this would happen and to be prepared for it.

I just saw the movie recently too and was horrified. It should be on broadcast tv so everyone could watch it.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 80

If Democrats, (moderates, left, and progressive types) don’t get busy and start supporting an alternative with money etc., Clinton is going to bag the nomination. That is, if the Senator hasn’t already done so. There really is no time to waste. Do we want to be sitting here, say five years hence bemoaning the Iraq War and God only knows what other war follies that we may be into?

Has Clinton even made a public statement to suggest she’s trying for the ‘08 nomination? The GOP has been using her to scare voting-age children for years already, and I’m not convinced yet that all this talk is anything more than people with REAL reasons to object to her politics jumping on a bandwagon the wingnuts built.

Eli @ 72

NumberFour @ 68

Oklahoma kiddo @ 61

Shoot. Hillary is a lightening rod even in her own party. This upcoming presidential election is but 24 short months away. We really, really need to decide on a better candidate than Clinton.

Oh, and most of the people in Great Britain don’t like Maggie Thatcher (Reagan’s lap-dog) one bit. That’s the Iron Lady’s legacy.

Yes, but who? If you could choose the Dem nominee for 08, who would it be?

First choice Gore, second choice Clark. After that it gets hazy. Maybe Edwards, maybe Feingold.

I’m with you there. Except maybe first choice Clark – a bit more electable?

Eli @ 86

Valley Girl @ 81

Punaise- thanks for the link. Another quote:

“So maybe that’s it. She’s a Democrat. She’s a woman. So she’s not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.”

I read the article. And, like Hillary, it is a masterpiece of triangulation. Hillary is no Democrat. And, screw the “feminist” meme. That is really, really such an insulting part of the article.

Hillary would be considerably better than whoever the Republicans nominate.

But that’s not saying much.

Hillary is the Superstar when it comes to raising $$$. And that Time mag piece quoted either her or one of her staff as saying “All she has to do is win the same states Kerry won PLUS ONE – either Florida or Ohio” and they think she can take Florida.

It was so calculated. So scientific. Call me naive but it just took my breath away.

Frankly, if someone told me that – I’d consider running too.

Wow. Lieberman punked on ABC’s “Brothers and Sisters.”

Calista Flockhart, erstwhile “conservative” commentator, speechifies about a fictional former Dem running for president as an independent. Great monologue.

You could just tell it was about Lieberman.

NumberFour @ 83

Eli, last I heard Gore had ruled out a run in 08. Any news on that front?

If I thought Feingold had a real shot, I’d campaign for him nonstop from now to the election.

This would be a great late nite thread – who would you pick, if you could pick…

Actually…

“While I haven’t completely ruled out the prospect at some point in the future, I don’t really expect to ever be a candidate again,” said Gore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20…..1011194945

Eli- as I said above, if Hill is the Dem, I’m voting a third party. I want Gore- unchained, and unleashed.

NumberFour @ 83

Eli, last I heard Gore had ruled out a run in 08. Any news on that front?

If I thought Feingold had a real shot, I’d campaign for him nonstop from now to the election.

I saw someone, either here or at Eschaton, claiming recently that Gore was going to go for it. I sure as hell hope so. My instinct is that Feingold isn’t electable, but hey, I thought Kerry *was*, so what do I know.

Impeachment Happens @ 84

I’m not crazy about Clark and I’m not sure why. Maybe cause he got into the race for 5 minutes and then left. No good byes, no thank you for a lovely evening – nothing.

I remember Clark saying some things in 2004 that I thought were inexplicable and kinda stupid, but I can’t for the life of me remember what they were. But he started too late, and didn’t have enough political experience.

Which is a shame, because I would have loved to see him matched up against Bush. Unlike Kerry, Clark actually *looks* like a badass war hero, and the contrast between Bush and the kind of man Bush *pretends* to be would have been striking.

Cozumel @ 92

NumberFour @ 83

Eli, last I heard Gore had ruled out a run in 08. Any news on that front?

If I thought Feingold had a real shot, I’d campaign for him nonstop from now to the election.

This would be a great late nite thread – who would you pick, if you could pick…

Actually…

“While I haven’t completely ruled out the prospect at some point in the future, I don’t really expect to ever be a candidate again,” said Gore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20…..1011194945

I’m in LA and my sources (well one in particular) say he’s gonna announce.

Hillary is a superstar at raising money- from corporate America.

Valley Girl @ 93

Eli- as I said above, if Hill is the Dem, I’m voting a third party. I want Gore- unchained, and unleashed.

I want Angry Gore in the worst way, but I can’t bear the thought of another Republican president. Maybe I’d vote third-party if I didn’t live in a purple state.

Gore’s planning to run? That’ll be great news. It will make for an interesting primary, though, Gore and Hillary. Who raises the most money?

TheOtherWA @
87

I read somwhere that Colin Powell showed Battle of Algiers to a bunch of pentagon folks just before going into Iraq, warning them that this would happen and to be prepared for it.

I just saw the movie recently too and was horrified. It should be on broadcast tv so everyone could watch it.

Rumour is back in the 70’s someone showed George W. Bush “Animal House” and told him that’s what the presidency would be like.

Too bad Bush modeled himself after Niedermeyer and not Bluto.

-GSD

Impeachment Happens @ 95

Cozumel @ 92

NumberFour @ 83

Eli, last I heard Gore had ruled out a run in 08. Any news on that front?

If I thought Feingold had a real shot, I’d campaign for him nonstop from now to the election.

This would be a great late nite thread – who would you pick, if you could pick…

Actually…

“While I haven’t completely ruled out the prospect at some point in the future, I don’t really expect to ever be a candidate again,” said Gore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20…..1011194945

I’m in LA and my sources (well one in particular) say he’s gonna announce.

To me, Gore is kind of like Olbermann in a way. Circumstances will dictate if he hears the calling. Unlike Kerry who just wants a do over.

Eli @ 97

Valley Girl @ 93

Eli- as I said above, if Hill is the Dem, I’m voting a third party. I want Gore- unchained, and unleashed.

I want Angry Gore in the worst way, but I can’t bear the thought of another Republican president. Maybe I’d vote third-party if I didn’t live in a purple state.

third party does get us jack-s**t. We need a strong Dem ticket, period. one we can believe in, not hold our noses for.

NumberFour @ 98

Gore’s planning to run? That’ll be great news. It will make for an interesting primary, though, Gore and Hillary. Who raises the most money?

Angry Gore does not need to have more money than Hillary to beat her, IMHO. Although he probably does need to be at least in the same ballpark.

I’m on the Gore train if it leaves the station.

Valley Girl @ 96

Hillary is a superstar at raising money- from corporate America.

And she gives a LOT of it to the DCCC. Which, as you know, is good and BAD. You know what? I can’t think about Hillary right now. Right now my focus has to be on the mid terms, taking back either the house or the senate, putting these animals behind bars and TRYING to fix the disasters that this lunatic and his administration have created in just 6 short years.

EvilDrPuma @ 88

Oklahoma kiddo @ 80

If Democrats, (moderates, left, and progressive types) don’t get busy and start supporting an alternative with money etc., Clinton is going to bag the nomination. That is, if the Senator hasn’t already done so. There really is no time to waste. Do we want to be sitting here, say five years hence bemoaning the Iraq War and God only knows what other war follies that we may be into?

Has Clinton even made a public statement to suggest she’s trying for the ‘08 nomination? The GOP has been using her to scare voting-age children for years already, and I’m not convinced yet that all this talk is anything more than people with REAL reasons to object to her politics jumping on a bandwagon the wingnuts built.

I don’t believe I’ve seen a statement from Senator Clinton that she’ll run in 2008. I would like it if Clinton said she would NOT run. She could be a huge help in defeating the Republicans in 2008 if she did. And she would then become a tentative statesperson to boot. My problem with Hill is her stance on Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli thing. Other than these two ESSENTIAL items, I’d vote for her. And actively support Senator Clinton. Period.

punaise @ 103

I’m on the Gore train if it leaves the station.

I can go with Gore or Edwards or Clark or Feingold…but for the love of God, let’s make sure we find somebody who wants to win more than Kerry did. He wasted my vote.

Gore would be my dream candidate, with either Edwards, Clark, or Feingold as VP, in that order.

Has anyone noticed that the dems who are frustrated and embarrassed by the leaders of their party call have been calling themselves PROGRESSIVES just as the Repubs who are embarrassed by the right wing of their party (and the President) have started calling themselves LIBERTARIANS?

I hope Gore is a candidate. Jane is very precient. intuitive. That is one of the reasons I was attracted to Jane’s articles at FDL. I remember her saying way back when the Gore movie came out that he was gonna run. Maybe Gore didn’t even know it at the time. But, that is what Jane said. Hope to god Jane made that call correctly.

Jerry Falwell has admitted that Hillary raises more money for him than Satan.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?????

Great fucking post

VALLEY GIRL @109

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is the campaign ad that made Carl Rove’s head explode.

Not that he didn’t grow another one but you must admit – it was pretty genius on Al’s part.

Good post. I count myself as one of those who very much dislike the argument that we should not torture because it ‘doesn’t work’ or is ‘counter-productive’. The problem with these arguments is that while they are factually correct they leave open the possibility that if torture did work it might be acceptable. Torture is wrong whether it works or not. I will not support or vote for anyone who is in favor of even a little bit of torture, or who voted to give the president the power to torture. I am starting a list and Hillary is on it.

Steve, Ladies, Gentlemen, with your permission I would like to leave 2008 for a bit and go back to Arianna’s post abt Ned’s concession speech for a minute. 2008 will be here soon, but 2006 is here in three weeks. I did not enjoy Arianna’s post but it wasn’t exactly a surprising idea, either. Could use to be examined, I think, esp since it seems to be a pattern we have seen before — Kerry, Gore, y’all know.

For instance, I keep hearing rumours of stuff going on behind the scenes (secret stuff that we can’t know about, yeah, that’s the ticket) about pressure on JL to quit (never happen) and yada yada. We have seen that our current congresscritters are largely owned by interests we have no knowledge of. Calling or writing one of them is like that cartoon of the suggestion box with the open bottem and the wastebasket underneath. One of the reasons I love FDL is because of the idea of growing one’s own congresscritters, so to speak, with the hope that one might get actual representation thereby. Looked promising, but it already seems that Ned has been disappeared into The Party. I was thinking that it was like The Prisoner.

Haven’t I read here that the def’n of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results? I’m not saying I’ll stop working/fighting if Ned goes all Establishment, but I’ll not do it the same way another time.

You know what really gets me?

It’s the hypocrisy. Not just the “little bit of torture okay in certain circumstances” position, but the hypocrisy.

Clinton is the same Senator who, during the debate on S. 3930 (a.k.a. the Torture Bill), actually quoted George Washington, in regards to the handling of British troops taken as prisoners of war during the American Revolution:

Treat them with humanity, and Let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren.

While I agree entirely with the sentiment of her speech that Washington’s words exemplify what should always have been and should continue to be a core American ethic, I cannot reconcile her overall history on this topic.

Eva @ 43,
I agree. Exigent circumstances…not a good policy guide.

Impeachment Happens @ 108

Has anyone noticed that the dems who are frustrated and embarrassed by the leaders of their party call have been calling themselves PROGRESSIVES just as the Repubs who are embarrassed by the right wing of their party (and the President) have started calling themselves LIBERTARIANS?

Sure, but remember that line from “Batman Begins:” It’s not who I am underneath…but what I do that defines me.

I’m sick of labels…self-administered or otherwise. I’ll be paying more attention to what these candidates stand for, and I mean “stand” as an active verb.

May I just say I’m furious at Arianna? People are over at the Lamont blog freaking out that Arianna and progressive bloggers in general have thrown Ned under the bus.

Does Arianna think that type of commentary is helpful in the last few weeks of a campaign? I’m trying to interpret her motives in the best possible light – but I’m angry. Fortunately, most of the comments to her post are extremely supportive of Ned and basically telling her to stop the criticism and perhaps roll up her sleeves and help.

Anyway, I’m on the Lamont blog telling folks that progressive blogs like Firedoglake still very much support Ned and his campaign.

I think there is probably a more constructive way that Arianna could have made her point. Just sayin’

Impeachment Happens @ 108

Has anyone noticed that the dems who are frustrated and embarrassed by the leaders of their party call have been calling themselves PROGRESSIVES just as the Repubs who are embarrassed by the right wing of their party (and the President) have started calling themselves LIBERTARIANS?

So true!! My office is now filled with Libertarians, though they still walk like a duck, and talk like a duck…

I have to say up-front that I am a Gore person.
I like the issues he is concerned about.

I saw it and thought it was a campaign movie. But I don’t think he’s committed to it yet.

Impeachment Happens @ 112

VALLEY GIRL @109

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is the campaign ad that made Carl Rove’s head explode.

Not that he didn’t grow another one but you must admit – it was pretty genius on Al’s part.

And, the great thing about “An Inconvient Truth” is that it wasn’t a campaign statement or a “political” statement- it was a moral statement.

Clothodi @ 113

Good post. I count myself as one of those who very much dislike the argument that we should not torture because it ‘doesn’t work’ or is ‘counter-productive’. The problem with these arguments is that while they are factually correct they leave open the possibility that if torture did work it might be acceptable. Torture is wrong whether it works or not. I will not support or vote for anyone who is in favor of even a little bit of torture, or who voted to give the president the power to torture. I am starting a list and Hillary is on it.

I think it’s a telling commentary on where this country is that there’s even competition between the practicality argument and the morality argument.

Pachacutec @ 121

I would ass that for Hillary…

Transposed key or Freudian slip? You be the judge!

punaise @ 79

Prairie Sunshine @ 77

NumberFour@68

Clark Edwards
Edwards Clark

Hamsher / Hardin Smith
Hardin Smith / Hamsher

I like that.

LOL. . . typo.

Valley Girl @
109

I hope Gore is a candidate. Jane is very precient. intuitive. That is one of the reasons I was attracted to Jane’s articles at FDL. I remember her saying way back when the Gore movie came out that he was gonna run. Maybe Gore didn’t even know it at the time. But, that is what Jane said. Hope to god Jane made that call correctly.

I didn’t make that call, but I saw it with a person who has one of the smartest political minds that I know of and when we walked out of the screening that’s what they said. So I take it as an article of faith that the film was at least setting the table for that possibility.

The person with the other smartest political mind I know of, however (Digby) saw the same film and said the exact opposite. So it is a hard call.

HotFlash @ 114

Steve, Ladies, Gentlemen, with your permission I would like to leave 2008 for a bit and go back to Arianna’s post abt Ned’s concession speech for a minute. 2008 will be here soon, but 2006 is here in three weeks. I did not enjoy Arianna’s post but it wasn’t exactly a surprising idea, either. Could use to be examined, I think, esp since it seems to be a pattern we have seen before — Kerry, Gore, y’all know.

For instance, I keep hearing rumours of stuff going on behind the scenes (secret stuff that we can’t know about, yeah, that’s the ticket) about pressure on JL to quit (never happen) and yada yada. We have seen that our current congresscritters are largely owned by interests we have no knowledge of. Calling or writing one of them is like that cartoon of the suggestion box with the open bottem and the wastebasket underneath. One of the reasons I love FDL is because of the idea of growing one’s own congresscritters, so to speak, with the hope that one might get actual representation thereby. Looked promising, but it already seems that Ned has been disappeared into The Party. I was thinking that it was like The Prisoner.

Haven’t I read here that the def’n of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results? I’m not saying I’ll stop working/fighting if Ned goes all Establishment, but I’ll not do it the same way another time.

“The Prisoner” Very good. I like it. Fantastic tv series too.

Valley Girl @ 122

Impeachment Happens @ 112

VALLEY GIRL @109

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is the campaign ad that made Carl Rove’s head explode.

Not that he didn’t grow another one but you must admit – it was pretty genius on Al’s part.

And, the great thing about “An Inconvient Truth” is that it wasn’t a campaign statement or a “political” statement- it was a moral statement.

Exactly! It was a political statement a moral statement AND a political ad all rolled into one AND PEOPLE ARE PAYING TO SEE IT!!!!
I can just see ‘Bush’s Brain’ splattered all over his kitchen walls.

Eli @ 86

Valley Girl @ 81

Punaise- thanks for the link. Another quote:

“So maybe that’s it. She’s a Democrat. She’s a woman. So she’s not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.”

I read the article. And, like Hillary, it is a masterpiece of triangulation. Hillary is no Democrat. And, screw the “feminist” meme. That is really, really such an insulting part of the article.

Hillary would be considerably better than whoever the Republicans nominate.

But that’s not saying much.

That she is the best Republican running is not a good enough reason to vote for her.

HotFlash @ 114

Looked promising, but it already seems that Ned has been disappeared into The Party.

They stuck him with Stephanie fucking Cutter, fachrissakes. You remember, Kerry’s communications director? Who told him to take the high road and not respond to the Swifties?

Sigh.

Eli @ 131

HotFlash @ 114

Looked promising, but it already seems that Ned has been disappeared into The Party.

They stuck him with Stephanie fucking Cutter, fachrissakes. You remember, Kerry’s communications director? Who told him to take the high road and not reespond to the Swifties?

Sigh.

I’ll see that sigh and raise you a FUCK.

HotFlash @ 130

Eli @ 86

Valley Girl @ 81

Punaise- thanks for the link. Another quote:

“So maybe that’s it. She’s a Democrat. She’s a woman. So she’s not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.”

I read the article. And, like Hillary, it is a masterpiece of triangulation. Hillary is no Democrat. And, screw the “feminist” meme. That is really, really such an insulting part of the article.

Hillary would be considerably better than whoever the Republicans nominate.

But that’s not saying much.

That she is the best Republican running is not a good enough reason to vote for her.

If it comes down to it, I would rather have Lincoln Chafee for prez than McCain.

Lieberman might be the only Democratic nominee I wouldn’t vote for.

Impeachment Happens @ 110

Jerry Falwell has admitted that Hillary raises more money for him than Satan.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?????

I thought Falwell worked for Satan, not the other way round….

Senator Lamont goes to Washington soon.

amoeba formerly known as kirk @ 134

Impeachment Happens @ 110

Jerry Falwell has admitted that Hillary raises more money for him than Satan.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?????

I thought Falwell worked for Satan, not the other way round….

It’s a partnership.

amoeba formerly known as kirk @ 134

I thought Falwell worked for Satan, not the other way round….

The only real difference between them is that Satan doesn’t exist.

Eli @ 136

amoeba formerly known as kirk @ 134

Impeachment Happens @ 110

Jerry Falwell has admitted that Hillary raises more money for him than Satan.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?????

I thought Falwell worked for Satan, not the other way round….

It’s a partnership.

Satan wears a bracelet that says What Would Falwell Do?

amoeba #134 — it’s called “projection“. Lots of Republicans suffer from it.

NumberFour asks who is a choice for ‘08?
Then in comments a reference to ‘The Prisoner’?

The ONLY possible response is “Number Six”, of course.

Rayne @ 139

amoeba #134 — it’s called “projection“. Lots of Republicans suffer from it.

that must be why the rethug news shows are so loud…

super egos……

Tommy Yum and Esten and your family–sleep well, dream big dreams.

Jane- well, I put a lot of stock in what Howie says. And, no, you didn’t name Howie. Maybe I am putting 2 and 2 together, and coming up with 5 17. But, in the different takes of ??? vs. Digby, I will hope for ??? to be correct.

Ed*ard Teller @ 57

One of the most fascinating subjects at fdl is Hillary Clinton. When I started commenting here 14 months ago, she came up mostly in a positive light. A few of us already had a dim view of her at the time. A combination of carefully contrived statements like her most recent on torture and, I guess, the course here slowly edging a half compass point at a time toward the left has changed that. The real left is on a collision course with Hillary Clinton at this stage.

Her views on the war, on Israel and a few other international issues put her far closer to W than to most firepups.

She was ok with bombing civilian targets in Lebanon, including factories, homes, a WATER PURIFICATION PLANT, because ya know terrorists drink water, bridges, dams, roads, the civilian international airport, and my personal favorite, an Orthodox Church, surely the favorite hideout of Muslim terrorists.

She lost my vote right about then.

Geneva Conventions forbid attacking civilian targets. Do we still want to belong to the civilized nations of the world? Hoping to God it is not too late…punaise @ 58

Oilfieldguy @ 46

Usually, the wages of war was a three day sacking of the conquered village. The soldiers, as part of their pay, got three days to rape, pillage and plunder.

“it takes a pillage”

It takes a pillage to raze a child.

The Battle of Algiers was popular viewing among the officer class and Pentagon staff about a year ago. They were watching it as an example of how to beat an insurgency, i.e., by killing, capturing, or dissuading all the insurgents. The French used unrestrained torture to break the resistance, cell by cell.

The movie ends with a teenage insurgent tough, Ali La Pointe, getting blown up in his hiding spot with the children who chose to hide with him. They know they’re going to get blown up, and don’t surrendur. It’s a true story, and Ali La Pointe and those children became martyrs.

The movie’s irony was apparently lost on our military, as was basic history. A few years later, the Algerian resistance re-formed and murdered thousands of French civilians in street riots, savagely butchering them. (They don’t mention that in the movie.) The French army came back and waged an even more brutal campaign all across the country, not just in the Casbah. No one knows how many Algerians they tortured and murdered, but their methods were brutal as a matter of policy. They lost, and they left.

Kirk- oh, please, go back to your real name! Things are complicated enough already!!!! Now, about that cat brush…

Clothodi @ 113

Good post. I count myself as one of those who very much dislike the argument that we should not torture because it ‘doesn’t work’ or is ‘counter-productive’. The problem with these arguments is that while they are factually correct they leave open the possibility that if torture did work it might be acceptable. Torture is wrong whether it works or not. I will not support or vote for anyone who is in favor of even a little bit of torture, or who voted to give the president the power to torture. I am starting a list and Hillary is on it.

Thanks for saying clearly what clearly needed saying!

I generally like Steve’s writing, but in this instance I’m going to disagree with Steve’s premise that “torture doesn’t work”.

To me, that statement sadly misses the entire point. It isn’t about whether “torture does or does not work”, it is instead, whether torture is moral.

The answer must be unequivocally no.

Cofer Black, a weasel of the of the 1st order if there ever was one, said “There was a before-9/11 and an after-9/11,” as Cofer Black, the onetime director of the CIA’s counterterrorist unit, put it in testimony to Congress in early 2002. “After 9/11 the gloves came off.”

He was wrong then, and he is still wrong now. But in the true spirit of Cheney philosophy, the ends justify the means.

They. Do. Not!
Not. Ever!

We cannot become the evil of our enemies and still expect to retain our selves. For then, who would be able to tell the difference?

Torture is a moral issue!

Arguing its practical effects, gives it a legitimacy that it can never have on moral grounds.

I remember that conversation of Jane’s friend claiming Gore was running. We’ll know soon who was right. In the meantime, their is this other election coming soon…

Oklahoma kiddo @
135

Senator Lamont goes to Washington soon.

Absolutely.

Oilfieldguy @ 148

I remember that conversation of Jane’s friend claiming Gore was running. We’ll know soon who was right. In the meantime, their is this other election coming soon…

I don’t think we are forgetting about the other election. Maybe just trying to stay OT? And, the torture issue does resonate for this election too.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 135

Senator Lamont goes to Washington soon.

From you mouth to God’s ear.

I will have to move out of Connecticut if he doesn’t. I refuse to be represented by Joe Evilman

dab from CT @ 151

Oklahoma kiddo @ 135

Senator Lamont goes to Washington soon.

From you mouth to God’s ear.

I will have to move out of Connecticut if he doesn’t. I refuse to be represented by Joe Evilman

I’d welcome you to PA, but… well…

punaise @ 103

I’m on the Gore train if it leaves the station.

Me too. I could help raise $ for him. I was asked to be on the Webb finance committee but am too busy w my Russia work. But for Gore….

Jane- everytime I see some down in the mouth comment here about Lamont’s victory (like from rw e.g.) I just want to nuke the comment. I hope to be phone-banking for Ned from afar (can’t manage a trip to CT bec. of my teaching stuff). Will report back on the phone-banking stuff. Screw pessimism.

Dale in Alabama @ 107

Gore would be my dream candidate, with either Edwards, Clark, or Feingold as VP, in that order.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes, in that order.

Gore! god please, answer the prayers, and move this man to represent us. If they hadn’t stolen the vote in ‘00, we wouldn’t be here now. Gore ‘08! (can someone please tell him to f***ing run?….)

Well, I’ve permanently removed Hillary from my list of Presidential tolerances. Period. She’s gone and she can’t come back. Torture is a line that, in my opinion, you do not cross. Ever. And she went and jumped right across it just to see if it felt right.

I’m an independent on my voter registration card (though I have not voted Democratic only one time, and that over 15 years ago), but as soon as this election is over I’m going to re-up as a Democrat specifically so I can vote against Hillary at the primary level.

I’m definitely on the Gore bandwagon. The two speeches he has given about BushCo, particularly the one he gave about BushCo’s destruction of the Constitution and power grab, were a lifeline to me – and I think many others. If he can keep honest and passionate, there’s no stopping him.

I’d love to have Gore come to CT.

Valley Girl @ 155

Jane- everytime I see some down in the mouth comment here about Lamont’s victory (like from rw e.g.) I just want to nuke the comment. I hope to be phone-banking for Ned from afar (can’t manage a trip to CT bec. of my teaching stuff). Will report back on the phone-banking stuff. Screw pessimism.

Well I finally made it up to this universe. I can almost hear the dinosaur footsteps.

I’d like to take this moment to say: I’m with VG!!!

postmodernista @ 157

Gore! god please, answer the prayers, and move this man to represent us. If they hadn’t stolen the vote in ‘00, we wouldn’t be here now. Gore ‘08! (can someone please tell him to f***ing run?….)

I don’t believe in forcing somebody to do something he doesn’t want to do. However, if Al Gore is reading this, I am prepared to negotiate the provision of a delicious homemade pizza if you announce your candidacy.

dab from CT @ 158

I’d love to have Gore come to CT.

And Murtha.

Eli @ 133

HotFlash @ 130

Eli @ 86

Valley Girl @ 81

Punaise- thanks for the link. Another quote:

“So maybe that’s it. She’s a Democrat. She’s a woman. So she’s not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.”

I read the article. And, like Hillary, it is a masterpiece of triangulation. Hillary is no Democrat. And, screw the “feminist” meme. That is really, really such an insulting part of the article.

Hillary would be considerably better than whoever the Republicans nominate.

But that’s not saying much.

That she is the best Republican running is not a good enough reason to vote for her.

If it comes down to it, I would rather have Lincoln Chafee for prez than McCain.

Lieberman might be the only Democratic nominee I wouldn’t vote for.

Lugar. Or Danforth.

Once again, I’ve missed an important event. When (and why) did Kirk become an amoeba?

egregious @ 162

Eli @ 133

HotFlash @ 130

Eli @ 86

Valley Girl @ 81

Punaise- thanks for the link. Another quote:

“So maybe that’s it. She’s a Democrat. She’s a woman. So she’s not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.”

I read the article. And, like Hillary, it is a masterpiece of triangulation. Hillary is no Democrat. And, screw the “feminist” meme. That is really, really such an insulting part of the article.

Hillary would be considerably better than whoever the Republicans nominate.

But that’s not saying much.

That she is the best Republican running is not a good enough reason to vote for her.

If it comes down to it, I would rather have Lincoln Chafee for prez than McCain.

Lieberman might be the only Democratic nominee I wouldn’t vote for.

Lugar. Or Danforth.

Works for me. Just saying that I’d rather have a moderate Republican than a hard-right one. If Hillary is that moderate Republican, than so be it. But I’m rooting for her in the primary about as much as I was rooting for Lieberman.

dab from CT @ 158

I’d love to have Gore come to CT.

Well that’s a great idea… I will try to find the phone # to call Gore’s office and pester him on that one.

Just wondering here but can anyone tell me a single issue that Hillary took the lead on, where she hadn’t triangulated, where she didn’t wait for someone else to give her cover? I’m coming up empty here.

Hugh @ 167

Just wondering here but can anyone tell me a single issue that Hillary took the lead on, where she hadn’t triangulated, where she didn’t wait for someone else to give her cover? I’m coming up empty here.

Just a second.

I got nothing.

Hugh @ 166

Just wondering here but can anyone tell me a single issue that Hillary took the lead on, where she hadn’t triangulated, where she didn’t wait for someone else to give her cover? I’m coming up empty here.

Not I.

Hugh @ 167

Just wondering here but can anyone tell me a single issue that Hillary took the lead on, where she hadn’t triangulated, where she didn’t wait for someone else to give her cover? I’m coming up empty here.

Perhaps marriage to Bill, but we’d probably be wrong.

EvilDrPuma @ 168

Hugh @ 167

Just wondering here but can anyone tell me a single issue that Hillary took the lead on, where she hadn’t triangulated, where she didn’t wait for someone else to give her cover? I’m coming up empty here.

Just a second.

I got nothing.

Why vote for a Lesser Evil?

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 170

Why vote for a Lesser Evil?

The GOP is a very big tent party.

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 171

Why vote for a Lesser Evil?

I voted Elder Party in ‘96. No More Years!

EvilDrPuma @ 161

postmodernista @ 157

Gore! god please, answer the prayers, and move this man to represent us. If they hadn’t stolen the vote in ‘00, we wouldn’t be here now. Gore ‘08! (can someone please tell him to f***ing run?….)

I’ll throw in fresh shrimp scampi, authentic southern pecan pie, salmon croquettes, and deviled eggs… somebody ’see’ that offer and raise it…. please?

I don’t believe in forcing somebody to do something he doesn’t want to do. However, if Al Gore is reading this, I am prepared to negotiate the provision of a delicious homemade pizza if you announce your candidacy.

Eli @ 172

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 170

Why vote for a Lesser Evil?

The GOP is a very big tent party.

So is the Elder Party. There’s plenty of room for all kinds of souls..er, voters in Cthulhu’s gullet…er, tent.

egregious #163,

I saw Danforth on TV a couple of times last week. I think it was the NesHour and Charlie Rose. In both places, he said we needed more centrists like Lieberman. Lugar is less crazy than most Republicans on foreign affairs but still gives Bush a lot of cover. I don’t know much about his domestic voting record but I would be willing to bet it’s pretty conservative.

EvilDrPuma @ 174

Eli @ 172

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 170

Why vote for a Lesser Evil?

The GOP is a very big tent party.

So is the Elder Party. There’s plenty of room for all kinds of souls..er, voters in Cthulhu’s gullet…er, tent.

I didn’t realize there was a difference.

Hugh @ 176

…In both places, he said we needed more centrists like Lieberman….

Lieberman is a centrist like a tomato is a fish.

Anyone who can say with a straight face – either in propia persona or just parroting – “torture may save innocent life” is ipso facto amoral.

A marginally weaker proof of the same fact is any person who thinks that efficacy is SO MUCH AS RELEVANT to whether or not we should torture.

That’s where America is – the “good guys” think it matters whether or not torture is effective. The “good guys” can’t even so much as *understand* the concept of “torture is among the most evil things a human can possible to another, so we won’t do it”.

Sheesh.

NYT editoral gave these reasons for its endorsement:

Mrs. Clinton has been an excellent senator — hard-working and in close touch with her state. We have been particularly impressed by her focus on the neglected “first suburbs” of aging housing and decaying infrastructure. As a Democrat, she has a limited ability to influence legislation, but she has taken a lead in forming the debate on a number of issues of substance. Her bill aimed at fixing the mechanics of voting set the standard for election reform legislation.

Watching Mrs. Clinton do her job, we have been impressed by her mastery of even the most obscure details of New York’s problems. Her ability to work with Republicans has been a pleasant surprise. She has won the genuine respect of most of her colleagues in Washington, and she seems to have found a forum in which her lifelong wonkishness can be put to good use. It seems as if in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has found her true calling.

NYT endorses Clinton

Eli, I’ll be in PA tomorrow. Sorta southeast of Pittsburg.

EvilDrPuma @ 178

Hugh @ 176

…In both places, he said we needed more centrists like Lieberman….

Lieberman is a centrist like a tomato is a fish.

Love it – and a great campaign slogan

Jeez, what do you have to do to be immoral anymore? She supports torture. Sounds immoral to me.

Feingold Edwards Clark in that order. I won’t include Gore since he is telling us not to. I don’t relish the idea of Clark a military leader since we need to stop using our military and focus on so many other issues which both Russ and John have had more preparation time and experience.

I was very impressed in The Battle of Algiers that two obviously-very-traditional Arab women were perfectly willing to shed their ideologically-comfortable chadors and put on decadent Western clothing in order to defend their homeland. Not a whole lot you can do to terrorise people like that.

scarecrow @ 180

NYT editoral gave these reasons for its endorsement:

It seems as if in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has found her true calling.

NYT endorses Clinton

Talk about “damning with faint praise”. *g*

scarecrow #180,

Much the same was said about Ted Kennedy, a good Senator but not Presidential material. To which I would agree. Of course with Junior now occupying the office the bar has been considerably lowered and would now include the backsides of most horses.

Oilfieldguy @ 180

Eli, I’ll be in PA tomorrow. Sorta southeast of Pittsburg.

Cool! Any chance of a side trip dahntahn?

Hugh @ 186

scarecrow #180,

Much the same was said about Ted Kennedy, a good Senator but not Presidential material. To which I would agree. Of course with Junior now occupying the office the bar has been considerably lowered and would now include the backsides of most horses.

True, and I would have voted for Francis the Talking Mule over the current incumbent.

dab from CT @ 182

EvilDrPuma @ 178

Hugh @ 176

…In both places, he said we needed more centrists like Lieberman….

I agree. It would look great on posters. Could it be the new “Kiss”?

Lieberman is a centrist like a tomato is a fish.

Love it – and a great campaign slogan

TRex now up at Late Nite.

Eureka Springs, AR @ 184

Feingold Edwards Clark in that order. I won’t include Gore since he is telling us not to. I don’t relish the idea of Clark a military leader since we need to stop using our military and focus on so many other issues which both Russ and John have had more preparation time and experience.

I dunno about Feingold and ONLY because he hasn’t been “battle tested” on the big stage. Divorced three times, could be a woman scorned there somewhere.

Those who are truly tough never fear looking weak. It is ALWAYS better to be misunderestimated by those who would fight you.

Coz – Oh man, I didn’t know it was three. That is a toughy, but, I have a sense he would give McCain a hell of a fight. I would prefer he continue to serve in the Senate than in a VP seat.

Torture is my third rail – touch it, and I will never vote for you.

I have never worried much about Hillary – I know a wide variety of people, and I don’t know, personnally, anyone who wants her to be President. Not one person. Likewise, in 194 comments on this blog, has one person supported her ? To become President money is not enough — at some point, people have got to vote for you.

Eureka Springs, AR @
184

Feingold Edwards Clark in that order. I won’t include Gore since he is telling us not to. I don’t relish the idea of Clark a military leader since we need to stop using our military and focus on so many other issues which both Russ and John have had more preparation time and experience.

FYI (although I would think that someone from AR would know this) – Clark was against Iraq long before we invaded. He testified in the congressional hearing – you can find it on CSPAN – think it was September of ‘02. Also, in case you haven’t noticed … it isn’t the military leaders that got us where we are today. My order would be Clark, Feingold and leave pretty boy Edwards off the list, along with Hilary.

TeddySanFrancisco,

“I wonder if Jane was tasered before she started in on TRex?”

Jane started in on Trex?
What did I miss?
Where?

Cozumel @ 192

Eureka Springs, AR @ 184

Feingold Edwards Clark in that order. I won’t include Gore since he is telling us not to. I don’t relish the idea of Clark a military leader since we need to stop using our military and focus on so many other issues which both Russ and John have had more preparation time and experience.

I dunno about Feingold and ONLY because he hasn’t been “battle tested” on the big stage. Divorced three times, could be a woman scorned there somewhere.

Feingold is twice divorced, not three times, and both of his former wives are on the record that he was a great husband and a father. The second divorce was primarily because his wife didn’t want to go through the strain and trauma of a nasty presidential campaign. No “woman scorned” to be found here.

I’m afraid that it is this kind of equivocating (a better term is “bullshitting”) is why a lot of people have trouble getting excited about the Democratic party. If the likely future leader of an opposition party cannot stand up and speak the truth about one of the most important issues of the day, then why should we bother supporting them?

EvilDrPuma @
88

Oklahoma kiddo @ 80

If Democrats, (moderates, left, and progressive types) don’t get busy and start supporting an alternative with money etc., Clinton is going to bag the nomination. That is, if the Senator hasn’t already done so. There really is no time to waste. Do we want to be sitting here, say five years hence bemoaning the Iraq War and God only knows what other war follies that we may be into?

Has Clinton even made a public statement to suggest she’s trying for the ‘08 nomination? The GOP has been using her to scare voting-age children for years already, and I’m not convinced yet that all this talk is anything more than people with REAL reasons to object to her politics jumping on a bandwagon the wingnuts built.

What EvilDrPuma said. Have never been convinced she was running. But the Rovian Spinners talked it up so much that it must have started seeming like a good way to build a war chest.

I have no enthusiasm for Hilary. I cannot help but hold her personally responsible for the triumph of the right-wing conspiracy and the present distress and disgrace of this nation. Whether considered from the POV of principle or of pragmatism, it was Hilary’s patriotic duty as First Lady to protect the office of the presidency and the constitution her husband took the oath to serve. She wasn’t able to persuade Bill either to abstain from hanky-pank during his term of office or to conduct his affairs with a discreet, mature, and loyal mistress. Everyone–except Bill, apparently–knew that his enemies were poised to take him and the Democratic party down if he slipped from the straight and narrow. If she could not avoid this predictable train wreck, how can we trust her to steer the nation?
Once Bill was caught, there were two courses open to true patriots: her husband must resign and apologize, or– better– make the ultimate sacrifice: quickly court assassination or a fatal accident. A martyred president, killed while trying to serve in spite of the harassment of a gang of power-mad hypocrites, would have been followed by a successful Gore presidency, with moderates or even liberals appointed to the Supreme Court. Republicans in congress would have served as watchdogs against Democratic corruption, instead going on a spree of greed, warmongering, and corruption. As a tragic widow Hilary might well have been appointed Vice President, and after her excellent service in that position (or as senator) she could easily have won the 2008 election. Our beloved country would have been spared the impotent last years of the Clinton administration and whole Bush II disaster– a disaster which may well spell the end of not only the America we know and love, but of the habitable planet itself. Mrs. Clinton and her husband chose to hang on to the office and put the country though the humiliating ordeal of impeachment, to the detriment of everything we elected Bill Clinton to preserve and protect. For the good of the nation, she must step aside and throw her support to the Democratic candidate who best represents the values she might once have represented herself.

I had the opportunity to ask Adam Nagourney about torture twice.

The first time, at Harvard, i asked about the ticking time bomb scenario in which we torture the wrong person, and asked what is our responsibility to that victim of torture? Nagourney responded by asking me about my position on abortion.

The second time was in Las Vegas when I showed him how to get to the conference center at the Riviera Hotel where YearlyKos was happening. He remembered me from Harvard and said he had to be very careful about such questions as torture because he couldn’t afford to be seen as “too political.”

Adam Nagourney will be at Harvard again tomorrow. This time I intend to ask him whether the Times or any other media establishment he knows of will be fielding reporters to pay extra-special attention to voting irregularities this year and if not why not considering that, even without the electronic voting machines, there are plenty of questions about the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I doubt I’ll get a straight answer to that one either but at least I’ll raise the question.

I recall that in his early days as Bush’s sec def Rumsfeld had all the pentagoners watch Algiers. Some day when the Bushies are all gone to their jobs in the private sector, we can discuss whether Rumsfeld was a smart man in the service of idiots or an idiot himself.