Morning pups. I think I’ll wait until my breakfast is settled before reading the report. It is stomach-churning enough as it is just to know what it contains.

Mornin’, Attaturk and Knut (say bon jour to France for me) -

Given the photo attached, I misread your title as Hypocritical Oafs. ;-)

Have been watching the rerun of shuster standing in for tweety last night. He had frank gaffney on with no identification of his party affiliation. ‘Course that wasn’t hard to ascertain….the guy must be, if not the master of bullshit, one of the five greatest in the repuke party. Have seen him briefly on other shows but shuster just sat there and let him run the entire segment. Actually most of shuster’s program consisted of right wingers given free rein to spew their lies uninterrupted….totally ineffective dem responders – what else is new? :-(((

OT, but ALL related:

Scroll down to the video from Adrian Salbuchi and his http://bigdanblogger.blogspot……-2009.html">warning regarding What Happened To Argentina – where he’s lived through three economic meltdowns. This video is in two parts – but if you want to see what actually occurred in Argentina just 6 years ago – keep watching after he’s finished.

We’re Next.

In addition to a copy of the report itself, the NY Review of Books has an in-depth article on it by Mark Danner, author of Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror, which can be read here.

He asks why is Cheney on such a “torture offensive”? Self-protection would be one reason; he’s a believer in punching out the referee before the game to make sure his calls are all in his favor.

Mr. Danner wonders whether Cheney is also playing another deeply cynical game. Is he giving the neocons a bus ticket home from the wilderness after the next terrorist incident? Is his defense of torture now the foundation to re-establish Republicans and a more widespread use of torture, warrantless detention and spying? The possibility is not far-fetched for the originator of torture as official US policy (regardless of the Orwellian denials and euphemisms used to pretend otherwise).

That possibility makes it imperative that Mr. Obama clearly separate himself in word and deed from his predecessor. Terrorist incidents are as probable as a hangover after a drinking binge. Mr. Bush’s actions have increased their likelihood by increasing geometrically the number of people alienated from the United States. Their origins will be complex, as the vulnerabilities their perpetrators take advantage of will be varied.

Cheney is also playing another deeply cynical game. Is he giving the neocons a bus ticket home from the wilderness after the next terrorist incident?

I think the neo crowd will facilitate/carry out an attack (again?) on the US in an attempt to damn OB so it is merely a matter of when. Mid terms maybe?

As for doctors without morals well we have had that ever since the insurance industry took over the medical profession.

Good morning, pups. Bob Herbert is off today, so Bobo gets to play at instructing us on philosophy and morals. In “The End of Philosophy” he says that today, many psychologists, cognitive scientists and even philosophers embrace a different view of moral thinking based less on reason and deliberation and more on seeing and evaluating.

Here he is.

The coffee, tea and hot chocolate are ready, and I’ve got apple walnut muffins, still warm from the oven. We’re looking ahead to another cold snap tonight, when temps are heading down to freezing again. I can cover up the lettuces, but the beans and peas are on their own… Have a great day.

The electoral hopes of the GOP are based on
hopes for a continued economic collapse and another terrorist attack.
Way to go, party of Lincoln.

Only traitors torture.
Persons not covered by Geneva = 0
No one has proved beyond a reasonable doubt who did 9-11.
The truth will set us free.

On a not totally unrelated note:

Accused chief torturer for Khmer Rouge blames U.S. for regime’s rise

The Khmer Rouge would have died out by 1970 if the United States had not supported Cambodia’s military-led government following the 1970 coup d’état that removed Prince Norodom Sihanouk from power, Duch, 66, told [his] UN-backed war crimes tribunal.

“I think the Khmer Rouge would already have been demolished,” he said. “But Mr. Kissinger [then U.S. secretary of state] and Richard Nixon were quick [to back coup leader Gen. Lon Nol], and then the Khmer Rouge noted the golden opportunity.”

Worst.Nobel.Ever.

The problem here is, too many want to let this whole torture and Bush admin stuff go by without a hearing.

Cheney’s famous ‘So?’ is alive and well because we can’t handle the truth.

On a not totally unrelated note:

Not really. Cheney served as a special assistant to Donald Rumsfeld at the Office of Equal Opportunity (1969 – 70) and then became a staff assistant in the Nixon White House (1970 – 1)

Yup. Bobo’s pop interpretation of controversial “evolutionary psychology” is perilously close to saying, “If it feels good, do it, because natural selection means it must be moral – or it wouldn’t feel good.” That’s the sort of “moral psychology” the Right claimed was the monopoly of DFH’s and Clintons.

Bobo is doing his usual schtick, reassuring the Base. This time, it’s that “modern psychology” affirms their views. The freedom with which he interchanges “thinking”, “feeling”, “moral” and “good”, not to mention “nice”, would be painfully familiar to hundreds of TA’s who shepherd thousands of freshmen through psych and logic 101 courses every year.

Setting aside the point that Bobo doesn’t know f*ck-all about what he is talking about, he is running a dangerous road for a Rethug. Setting aside the Royalists and Ultramontane branch of reactionary nineteenth-cenury conservatism, the core of the Reaganite wing that Bobo represents has always been the Ayn Rand approach of rational selfishness. Their creed and the economics it implies absolutely depends on it. To suppose, as he has not incorrectly figured out, that the submerged part of iceberg that is the non-rational part of our mental processes may affect our responses goes directly against the creed. In an earlier life, George Lakoff did some extremely fascinating work in this area, with massive bibliography to boot. I did an article on it about 10 years before the stuff got fashionable in economics. Word to any prospective academics: don’t be too far out in front of the conventional wisdom. Your stuff will sink like a stone until the matter is picked up by a Bobo.

I understand why the Red Cross only gave the names of the prisoners, but these “medical practitioners” require serious outting–because we’ll need their names to get their licenses yanked.

cheney is getting his talk machine to say anyone who disagrees with him is putting this ocuntry at risk.

this is working too

So I keep wondering, how do Barrack Obama and Eric Holder decide which laws will be enforced? Do they have a weekly meeting and brainstorm or do they chat over tea and cookies? “Can’t enforce laws against torture; that would embarrass the GOP.” “Can’t enforce laws against illegal surveillance. That would embarrass the Congressional leadership.” “Can’t enforce the laws against fraud. That would embarrass the nation’s financial leadership.” And we all know that embarrassment avoidance of the powerful is the most important goal of U.S. Government policy.

On the bright side, they’re saying they WON’T enforce laws against marijuana in states where it’s otherwise legal. So there’s that, particularly for medical users.

But your larger point is absolutely correct.

Above was intended as reply to #18.