Kevin,

Yes it was staged. But ironically it puts the dems in a great position, because its terrifically easy to explain how much of a sham this whole thing really was. All dems need to do is cite the language of the bill to show how clearly it contradicts the McCain-Warner stance.

Standing up against this bill loudly and aggressively will permit the dems to completely pull the mask off the whole charade that the "War on Terror" has become.

McCain and company have just demonstrated to the nation how clearly unpricipled they really are. No one is going to be fooled by this "legislation".

Hit them in the mouth hard and loud. The bill is not defensible. It's obvious its not defensible any journalist that tries to report this "bill" as anything other than a total capitulation is a joke.

No one is being fooled anymore. The republicans have shown that they are un-American down to the phony handshake, and the beauty is that Dems can easily show that they have been excluded from the "negotiatiions" at every step.

Team Bush/Cheney have spent two months brewing up bullshit soup and now they are going to be forced to eat it.

How are Democrats in "an impossible position"? Why don't they just oppose the torture bill? It's the TORTURE BILL. We're AGAINST TORTURE. Not for it sometimes if it's okay with someone somewhere in secret where we won't have to hear about it. We're always against torture. Period. Republicans are for it. Period. How hard is that?

This may be a silly question, but why should this put Dems in an impossible situation? If you mean that they'll lose votes by speaking out against torture and 'coercive techniques,' then so be it.

==========

Very interesting NEWS! Musharraf has said that Richard Armitage, in a discussion with a Pakistani officer two days after 9/11, threatened Pakistan with being bombed back into the Stone Age by the US if it didn't fully cooperate with the US. Musharraf is going to spill the beans on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Mush has also written a book which will be published on 9/25/06.

Marty Lederman's reading of the bill's language is that "the Senators have capitulated entirely," and the New York Times agrees that President Bush won nearly everything he had originally wanted:

Kevin, thanks for telling me this. Now I can sleep safely knowing Bush has been given all of the power he believes is necessary to prevent the terrorists from murdering us as they did on 9/11. For a while I was afraid America was going to give in to the terrorists by being soft on them. With this new law, the terrorists know they are on the run because antiquated rules like the Geneva Conventions are no longer controlling in this new modern unprecedented War or Terrorism. Americans can sleep safely knowing the Republic is safe again under the protection of George W Bush.

What I want to know if if stuff like this Abu Ghraib image is now something the administration can officially do? As far as I can tell from reading the bill language, as long as no physical damage worse than "cuts, abrasions, or bruises" is created, this would be ok.

Or, for a related question, are these dog bite wounds acceptable "cuts, abrasions, or bruises", or do they rise to the level of a prohibited "burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature"

What kind of country creates policy where it's interogators can kick the shit out of suspects as long as they don't do more than create "cuts, abrasions, or bruises"?

Or am I missing something?

If we can't betray all of our core national principles and become an international pariah, then the terrorists will have won.

Coming up in 2008: drawing and quartering for convicted leakers.

Vote against that you cowardly, treasonous Democrats.

Ho ho ho.

It doesn't matter if it was staged or not. There will be no draft to get to the Senate floor for a vote.

This is all smoke and mirrors for election year politics.

Nothing the GOP can put together will pass the legal requirements for the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

All the Dems have to do is say the deal won't pass any legal tests and shoot it down.

Dems are in a difficult position because they've been quiet the whole time and allowed McCain to be the "voice of conscience" on this bill. With McCain backing the compromise, it looks like it must be a decent bill, right? After all, McCain was the one fighting for decent treatment!

So now Dems have to argue that it's a bad bill even though St. McCain approves of it. That's a tough position to be in. Not impossible, maybe, but tough.

Here's the Pakistan link for anyone that's interested:

US Threatens Pakistan in 2001

I agree, Kevin. The Dem silence on this has been deafening. I just don't get it. If you can't speak out about torture, then what can you speak out about? I'm beginning to be able to count the Dem politicians I respect on two hands. So they should be careful; although they might lose a few moderate R votes on the torture issue, they might just send me to a third party one of these days or find me sitting at home on election day.

I think it is a shame the Democrats largely remained silent while McCain, Graham, Powell et. al. were doing the talking. This would have been a great opportunity for some calm, bipartisan, rational statesmanlike talk to support the claims being made the countless DoD professionals who have come out against Bush's torture laws.
---
If McCain & co. indeed have capitulated to the White House, it is difficult to see how the Democrats now can do much more than hold their noses while voting for this "compromise". If they vote against while the entire GOP caucus votes for the new laws, the Dems will lose and Karl Rove will again exploit the issue in the elections.

MARCU$

Kevin Drum? anybody? --

From Wednesday, September 20th, re Maher Arar, the Canadian rendered to Syria.

Lieing or supremely ignorant? Can't he be F***ing sued to blatant lieing to those who pay his wages?

ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General: "We were not responsible for his removal to Syria. I'm not aware that he was tortured, and I haven't read the commission report.

Mr. Arar was deported under our immigration laws. He was initially detained because his name appeared on a terrorist list, and he was deported according to our -- according to our laws."

Fot those who don't know, he was denied access to the Canadian consul as is common practice under international law, and had to wait a week before being allowed a call (to his family. He then took a flight, courtesy US (CIA) to Jordan and was driven to Syria (our supposed mortal enemy, or one of them), and spent a year there. Canadian investigation has cleared him of any complicity with terrorists of any kind, let alone al Qaeda, and has agreed hed was tortured in Syria.

Can't we get this guy? Gonzalez, that is!
Or does lieing through your teeth not matter any more?

nepeta MARCU$,

I can't disagree with you more. Dems weren't involved in the charade. That's a good thing. They knew there was no serious debate going on, so they didn't Lieberman up. They just let the republicans shadowbox among themselves. Now they have even better moral standing to come out loudly and proudly against the bill.

This is not a 65% favorable president. This is not a momenet of panic after a terrible terrorist attack. This is a president who's barely in the forties with a Congress who's barely in the 20's.

Literally there are no consequences for coming out hard and loud against this horrible bill. There is no down side for fighting it.

Do you guys imagine there will be marches on washington if the bill gets stopped? Angry mobs demanding the president himself start slapping around detainees? Where is the pro-torture lobby? There is no faction that wants this other than the administration.

You guys think we gonna see John Hagee up there demanding that the US torture prisoners the way Jesus would have done?

HELLO?

The republicans have over-projected and set themselves up for a huge fall.

There's no inevitablility to this at all. You guys couldn't be more wrong.

That's all well and good, but the legislation also allows the president to unilaterally decide what's permissible below this threshold.

That is not correct, Kevin. The legislation explicitly lists things that constitute "grave breaches", and gives the President the authority to interpret and enforce the conventions in regards to violations that are not grave breaches. I'm not trying to defend the bill, but that particular criticism is wrong.

As for whether it prohibits waterboarding and the other "torture-lite" techniques, that will almost certainly be determined by the bill's definition of "serious mental pain or injury." If you assume that waterboarding, etc. is legal under current law (and I'm not aware of any case in which they were found illegal), then any case for illegality will be based on two changes to that phrase (the rest of the torture provisions deal with physical safety, which hasn't played a role in the legal debate as far as I know so far).

The first change is that while current law apparently prohibits "severe mental pain or suffering", this bill changes that standard to "serious mental pain or suffering", which I assume is a lower threshold. Second, while current law prohibits "prolonged mental harm", this bill changes that to "serious and non-transitory mental harm."

You could probably make the case that waterboarding is transitory (the most resistant prisoner, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, only lasted 2.5 minutes under it). I'd guess not so much for the cold-cells, but who knows. Whether that stuff qualifies as "serious" mental suffering when so far it apparently hasn't qualified as "severe" mental suffering, I don't know. If the sensation of drowning isn't severe, then its hard to say what any of these adjectives mean.

Sorry, I misread your comment, Kevin. You read the grave/non-grave interpretation bit correctly, as far as I see.

Torture doesn't work, it endangers our troops, and is completely immoral.

WWJT?

patience--------These are the same Democrats who couldn't stand the fuck up to 33% W and his handpicked Get out of Free Supreme Ct nominee Samuel Alito? They're suddenly gonna stand up against the torture of some furriner evildoers? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Please sir do you have a bridge in Brooklyn you'd contemplate making available for sale?

Dems are in a difficult position because they've been quiet the whole time and allowed McCain to be the "voice of conscience" on this bill. With McCain backing the compromise, it looks like it must be a decent bill, right? After all, McCain was the one fighting for decent treatment!

You really are some kind of double agent, aren't you?

What's wrong with simply calling their bluff? Coming out and saying "hey, this whole thing was a song and dance aimed at approving torture. McCain is just as much for torture as the rest of them, as he just showed."

Is that so hard?

"Now I can sleep safely knowing Bush has been given all of the power he believes is necessary to prevent the terrorists from murdering us as they did on 9/11."

Yes, you can sleep the sweet sleep of mongoloid idiot—because these guys reallys sit around thinking about how tough our codpiece wearers are. Meanwhile, all the Abu Ghraibs we've created are churning out cadres of killers who specifically want your ass, Al. Pleasant dreams, sucker.

>Dems are in a difficult position...

I disagree. All the Dem's have to do is say McCain got it wrong. It was a good try on his part but he caved, etc, etc, and came up with a bill that won't pass any legal tests.

There will be no bill to vote on.

Use the Repub tactic of review: "It looks interesting but we have to review it before we do anything about it."

Then kill it.

Reality is on the Dem's side.

Bush and GOP are down not because of what Dem's are saying, it's because reality is bashing Bush over the head and enough people are beginning to see that.

I truss Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer will be upfront against this abomination but notably the Evan Bayhs, Hillary Clintons, Maria Cantwells and Charles Schumers will be quite vociferous in their resounding silence. And I have no clue where Holy Joe will fall on this issue. I am amazed he didn't team up with warner, mccain and Huck as part of the transpartisan kick he's on. It'll be telling to see what he comes out for, and which way he votes.

i agree that the dems have misplayed their hand on this one, although i'm not sure how much political difference it makes (if you support torture, you already weren't a dem vote, so the fact that the torture-lovers get what they want shouldn't really change the political dynamic in november), but i really wanted to respond to kevin's second last sentence.

of course warner, graham, and mccain caved completely. it's what they do.

Drum...It's late. Go to bed.

Patience: "Literally there are no consequences for coming out hard and loud against this horrible bill. There is no down side for fighting it."

Then why does this 'put the Dems in an impossible position?' (Kevin's analysis) And why haven't Dems been loudly opposing Bush's plans to use torture regardless of whether the 'Repub three' were partaking in a 'staged' argument? If your analysis is correct, that a large majority of Americans have strong negative feelings about torture, then why are the Dems walking on egg shells? I'm tired of political strategy replacing honest and loud debate, that's all.
If Dem politicians hadn't been watching their political asses during the War Resolution vote, it's possible they could have saved the lives of many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It's too late now for all those who have died.

It is a sad day if, when the sun shines brightly on the moral case against torture, rendition and suspension of habeas corpus, the majority of legislators can close the door and retreat into the dark without a word.

Shame! Shame! SHAME!

Yes it was staged. But ironically it puts the dems in a great position, because its terrifically easy to explain how much of a sham this whole thing really was. All dems need to do is cite the language of the bill to show how clearly it contradicts the McCain-Warner stance.

Absolutely. And it also gives the Dems an opportunity to blow away McCain's 'maverick' reputation (which was long ago proved to be bullshit).

All that the Senate Dems have to do is come out hard against McCain, Warner and Graham as flip-flopping capitulators. So, your move Senator Reid.

So now Dems have to argue that it's a bad bill even though St. McCain approves of it. That's a tough position to be in.

No, it isn't. Reid can come out and say how shocked he is that his colleague Senator McCain, a man of such integrity, would capitulate on principles he holds dear. He can make it about McCain ('prepared to sacrifice his principles for short-term electoral success'), or about Bush ('this is another example of the President bullying Congress'). I'd say he should torpedo Saint McCain.

He's got the WaPo and NYT editorial boards to quote from. He'll have law professors on his side.

The only problem is whether he's got the stones to fight, and if necessary take it to the voters.

It don't matter, all this media hype, Bush is just gonna make s Executive Order or a signing statement anyway.

The 'Decider' doesn't care what the 'majority' or the GOP thinks. No winners on this one folks.

Next scandal due out soon

You know, screw the Dems and their f***ing "impossible position." We didn't send them to Washington to spend all their time worring about re-election. Stand up for what's right or you don't deserve to be there. If they are afraid to stand against torture, the Repubs are right. They truly are too cowardly to run the country.

IMHO the Dems were always in a difficult position. Their partisans passionately oppose letting the CIA continue to use not-quite-torture techniques, but the country as a whole strongly supports it. Bush's contention that these techniques worked and prevented terror attacks (particularly waterboarding) has been confirmed by Brian Ross of ABC. So, the Dems will have to disappoint their partisans or disappoint the general electorate,

In addition, the Dems look weak and irrelevant. Bush is in the game. He represents security, which he believes is best for the country. McCain is in the game. He represents opposition to torture, which he strongly believes in, obviously. But, the Dems haven't been in the game. They come across as feckless observers.

And, now that Democratic Senators cannot avoid taking a position, Kevin and the posters here are focusing more on the politics of their votes than what's best for the country.

In short, even the Dems on this board see Bush and McCain leading out of conviction, while they see the Dems following based on political calculation.

Oh, is this where so-called centrist Dem, Kevin Drum tells us that this will make Dems look weak on terrorism if they were to do anything, like standing up against this awful bill?

According to the NYT, not standing up made the Dems look weak and irrelevant. It made it look like those Dems in Washington simply just don't care about this awful bill.

What good is it to elect Democrats if they continually fail to voice the objections of their own voting constituency?

And indeed if Broder thought standing against Bush's torture bill WAS a "middle of road act" where does that leave Kevin Drum?

I just don't believe that Dems are utterly powerless to do anything, and it's been centrist Dems like Kevin, continually insisting that Dems don't re-act that has caused Dems to weak in polls and keep losing elections.

Democrats are NOT in an impossible position, and it only becomes an impossible position if Dems fail to act.

Dems are in a difficult position because they've been quiet the whole time and allowed McCain to be the "voice of conscience" on this bill. With McCain backing the compromise, it looks like it must be a decent bill, right? After all, McCain was the one fighting for decent treatment!

It looks like it must be a decent bill? That's wrong Kevin because the media has spoken: "the Senators have capitulated entirely" and the Washington Post had an editoral on this too Kevin. It wasn't merely the NYT.

Unless this is a situation where the TV media states otherwise, or other then the obvious truth and the fact is "the Senators have capitulated entirely why would Dems look weak if say anything right now?

The only thing that will cause Dems to keep losing upcoming elections, to look weak is if they fail to say anything right now. Since the Dems fail to act, the solution to their problem isn't to continue to be actionless.

IMHO the Dems were always in a difficult position. Their partisans passionately oppose letting the CIA continue to use not-quite-torture techniques,

If you believe that the CIA is not torturing detainees, please define what you think torture is. Spell it out in detail.

but the country as a whole strongly supports it.

No, we don't. Americans have been so irrationally frightened that when poll questions are phrased suggesting that "it's okay in rare cases to torture suspected terrorists" they'll sign on, but clearly reluctantly. Americans, foolish people we, believe that there are systems of checks and balances that our government is employing to make sure that innocent people aren't being tortured. But we have the most secret administration in the history of our country operating in private and refusing to submit to oversight.

Bush's contention that these techniques worked and prevented terror attacks (particularly waterboarding) has been confirmed by Brian Ross of ABC.

There is nothing that comes out of George W. Bush's mouth, or any member of his administration, that resembles the truth. These are sick, twisted, liars.

And what possibly would Brian Ross of ABC know and be able to confirm that NOBODY ELSE outside of Bush's inner sanctum, nobody else in government, whose job it is to oversee what Bush is doing, can confirm?

Kevin and the posters here are focusing more on the politics of their votes than what's best for the country.

Let's talk about what's best for the country. I got into this earlier at Think Progress:

Over at Think Progress:

#55. What are some other interrogation techniques we could use to get the information we need considering these terrorist(sic) have been trained to lie about what they know as well as how they are treated if captured?

I am assuming no one here is against interrogating terrorists…right?

Comment by Tracy — September 21, 2006 @ 5:33 pm

The simplest answer as to other interrogation techniques is `positive reinforcement,' which means rewards for cooperation, in the way of food, treatment, privileges. And, not surprisingly, just as we know that torture doesn't work, we know that `positive reinforcement' does.

But Tracy's question reveals an acceptance of false premises, perhaps because there is little to contradict Bush-Cheney dogma in the MSM.

False Premise #1:

Let's get some clarification before we label people `terrorists': These are `detainees' who have been charged with nothing, convicted of nothing in any recognized court of law. Only in `the Court of George,' which is a rogue operation with no legal authority. It's being protected by `The Court of the GOP,' (the Republican-controlled Congress), another `Court,' that has no legal authority - at least until they succeed in packing the federal courts with neo-fascists. If left standing (Republican-control), it will bring down and end the United States of America. Two-hundred and thirty years, gone. If everything that Bush-Cheney and the Republican-controlled congresses have done these last six years is left to stand, the `experiment in democracy' is over.

In the U.S., people are innocent until proven guilty. In the U.S., people are held responsible for acts that they commit that are against the law - behavior and not thoughts. Either you believe in the rule of law, or you have no business calling yourself an American.

Many of these detainees are also crime victims: They were kidnapped off of streets in other countries, their own countries, by our CIA and taken to underground prisons and tortured. Completely innocent people, with no ties whatsoever to terrorists. If they weren't terrorists before, I could certainly understand their seeking out the nearest Al Qaeda recruiting station once they got home.

That's why we have to hold to our traditions of American jurisprudence, and why the Bush-Cheney approach to the problem of terrorism is so completely off-the-mark, and guaranteed to worsen the problem, not make it better.

Experts agree that the Bush-Cheney plan for eliminating terrorist attacks will not eliminate terrorist attacks. Even Bush and Cheney admit it. The Bush-Cheney plan will never accomplish what Americans want: A pre-9/11 world, in which the U.S. is an admired, respected, and emulated superpower, not targeted for destruction and violent acts of terror. Bush-Cheney have admitted that they can't deliver that. "An impossible dream."

It's not an impossible dream. What existed pre-9/11/01 is not only doable, what existed pre-1993 (the first WTC attack) is achievable. But not with corporate shills in control of U.S. policies and power.

What they're offering is paradoxical: A chronic state of war, of escalating hostilities and broadening conflict. Of days when only 5 national airports are shut down due to terror threats, or only a few hundred people are killed, are considered the new green/low on the bottom of the Homeland Security color code. Our lives will be like how the Israelis live. Tuning out, shutting down, never knowing if today is the day that a suicide bomber will set himself off in a popular cafe that our kid frequents. Those will be considered "good days."

We have a long list of Conservatives, in both political parties, to blame for this mess. For changing America's credo, going all the way back to the end of WWII. That's how long they've been in control of U.S. government, specifically U.S. foreign policy. These are the same people who insisted that hysteria over `commies' become national policy. Their solution to preventing communism from spreading was not unlike their solution to terrorism: Spend us into oblivion while trying to undermine the economies of communist nations, escalate an arms race, wage `hate-campaigns,' blacklist anybody who disagrees, break them by driving them and their families into poverty, turning Americans against each other. Some promoters of the peaceful brotherhood of man, aren't they?

The same hate- and fear-mongers, just as greedy then as they are today, scheming for unregulated capitalism where very few enjoy extreme wealth at the expense of the many whose labor they've exploited on the cheap.

Conservatives' solution then (massive military buildup, unchecked nuclear proliferation and arrogant isolationism and bullying) was as wrong as it is now, and leveler heads managed to prevail and keep them from annihilating the world. But they are now back. Whether in their original form or this new-and-improved `Neo- form, there really is no difference. Conservatives aren't stopping Bush-Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hadley, Wolfowitz, Rice and all. McCain, Warner, Graham, Powell, Armitage, Frist, there is no one in their party who is standing up and saying, "No more." The Bush-Cheney answer is more `shock and awe', impose more military might, commit unpardonable atrocities in Iraq, in Lebanon, and surely before the year is out, Iran. Atrocities which only create more terrorists and widen the theater of violence.

Americans have to stop living in a bubble about this: Since Bush has been in the White House, terrorist acts have increased 3-fold worldwide. We are less safe than we were on 9/11/01 because Bush has made incalculable enemies for us without using any of the money he's borrowed in our names to shore up the security of America. Five years after 9/11/01 and 95% of the cargo entering this country still goes uninspected. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, money that Americans will be paying off for generations, have all gone into the pockets of Bush-Cheney's corporate cronies. There is nothing to show for all of that money.

When Bush boasts that there hasn't been another attack on home soil since 9/11/01 (five years), that's not any record of achievement. The first attack by Al Qaeda on the WTC was in 1993. It took Al Qaeda another eight years to commit 9/11/01. If Al Qaeda just went by "the most bang for their buck" strategy, which they do, they don't have to attack again on U.S. soil for another few decades. Killing Americans isn't Al Qaeda's goal; terrorizing us into ruination is what they're after.

Paradoxically again, Bush-Cheney and Al Qaeda are in a odd dependent partnership where they depend on each other for survival. The best tool that Al Qaeda has for fanning our fears of terrorism is an American election, when Karl Rove makes sure that we are at our most frightened in order for Republicans to retain control of government. If Al Qaeda was wiped out and no longer any threat, Republicans would be toast. There is no incentive for Bush-Cheney to win a war on terrorism.

Is There a Solution?

Yes. But, unfortunately, the solution that works and that is widely known and understood in circles outside of Washington and the traditional `Establishment' culture, doesn't get any play in the mainstream media. Any time that anybody gets close to bringing up any alternatives at all, the GOP-noise machine goes into action. The solution is known inside Washington, inside the State Department (government employees, not the political appointees) and elsewhere. It's even known inside the Pentagon, but until Bush-Cheney and the GOP-controlled Congress are subdued, it stands no chance.

In the last few weeks, with the suppression of alternative solutions, a new meme has been taking hold in the minds of previously reasonable Americans: That all Muslims are the problem. I guess that means that after five years of being frightened out of our minds by Bush-Cheney terrorist rhetoric, Americans are coming around to giving Bush-Cheney a blank check to kill any and all Muslims.

We are a Nation in Deep Need of Help and Healing.

Can you recall the last time you heard or saw any psychiatrists, psychologists or social scientists brought into the media to discuss anything, much less terrorism? When Bush and Republicans took over (and with the help of the DLC) we got leadership that is ignorant of (and phobic about) what drives people to commit acts of violence against others, as well as themselves (suicide bombers).

There's nothing unique to Islam that makes Muslims any more susceptible to commiting an act of violence than a Christian or a Jew or a Buddhist, or a Wiccan or a Hare Krishna or an atheist.

I think that Americans desperately want to understand why somebody would join Al Qaeda. I think that Americans are not assuaged when Bush says, "It's because they hate our freedom." After five long years in a vacuum, with no one in the `Establishment' (including Democrats, and MSM) willing to offer information and alternative solutions to the American people that challenges the Bush administration, let's start the ball rolling in the blogosphere.

Them and Us: Cult Thinking and the Terrorist Threat, by Arthur Deikman, M.D. It's a good place to begin.

Because of False Premise #2:

"There is no `them,' only `us.'"

And we're in serious trouble.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 泵阀 12 13 14 泵阀 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 泵阀 29 30 31 32 33 34 泵阀 36 泵阀 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 机械 58 机械 60 机械 机械 机械 64 机械 66 67 68 设计 设计 设计 设计 设计 设计 民品 民品 民品 机票 机票 机票 化工 化工 化工 工业 工业 工业 ENGLISH ENGLISH 机械 ENGLISH 91 安防 安防 安防 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 化工 163 164 165 工业 167 168 169 170 171 安防 173 174 搬场 176 注册 注册 注册 注册 机票 机票 机票 机票 工业 化工 化工 化工 泵阀 化工 化工 工业 搬场 安防 安防 搬场 搬场 搬场 工业 ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH 安防 安防 安防 安防 安防 安防 旅游 旅游 旅游 旅游 旅游 彩票 彩票 彩票 彩票 工业 彩票 机械 机械 泵阀 泵阀 泵阀 化工 228 泵阀 230 泵阀 232 233 机械 机械 机械 机械 机械 设计 设计 设计 设计 设计 搬场 搬场 安防 安防 民品 民品 民品 民品 机票 机票 机票 化工 化工 化工 化工 机票 260 261 262 工业 264 工业 266 工业 工业 269 ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH 安防 安防 安防 安防 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 汽车租赁 机械 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 机械 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 注册 410 411 412 413 名录 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 仪器 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 机械 搬场 ENGLISH 455 搬场 ENGLISH 安防 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 旅游 数码 泵阀 旅游 机械 化工 设计 机械 泵阀 化工 搬场 机票 机械 租车 设计 旅游 彩票 旅游 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 泵阀 仪器 工业

The argument here is one that the majority of Americans care about in the up coming elections and that is that most American don't like the obvious lack of any congressional oversight.

Republicans can't stop spending, can't stop corruption, can't get serious about morality if Republicans keep "capitulated entirely".

This has been remarked on before, regardless, I'm not sure you Americans have come to terms with how flawed your non-parliamentarian system is. There are many good things about your 'way' but recent capitulations by congress re FISA and now military commissions and torture reveal a severe problem concerning accountability that to this foreign observer seems to stem from the fact you have no efficient voice of an offical opposition and also from the fact that your President never really has to face his accusers in the form of a question period.

Can you imagine Bush in a forum like a parliamentary question period? He'd be destroyed, it'd be a slaughter - I mean, he can barely handle a softball interview with Wolf Blizter!

You people really need to look into this before Alcibiades leads to ruin your city on the hill.

Maeven,

Thanks for that.

I just finished reading 'Bush's Useful Idiots', the lead essay in the latest London Review of Books. It details how our prominent "liberals" have acquiesced in the neo-con agenda.

And shame on Kevin for not pointing out how easy it would be for the Dems to loudly oppose this "compromise". As many commenters have already stated; the door is wide open.

You're right, ugly. As awful as Blair is, at least he can withstand a direct blast on the floor pf Parliament—one thing that explains his longevity. Clinton and Kennedy are the only two modern prezes I can think of who could could speak extemporaneously, with persuasion.

Neanwhile, "I truss Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer..."

Jeez, Robbymack, you really have an intimate relationship with these people. Maybe put in a good word for the idea of winning some elections, if you get the chance. Oh, and tell them all to hold their breath.

The substance of the Geneva Conventions "compromise" may be the stuff of nightmares, but good luck to the Dem leadership selling this as an instance of Rubber Stamp Republicans caving and going along with Bush!

By sitting on the sidelines throughout this whole piece of Kabuki, our national Dem pols let the GOP frame crystallize: this was Courageous Rebel Republicans led by Straight Talking Maverick Saint John McCain standing up to the Bush White House. And the story isn't going to come out "McCain Caved"... it's going to be "Fearless Saint McCain Stood Up to Bush".

Just Wednesday, Harry Reid told the AP that the Dem leadership was "sitting on the sidelines watching the GOP catfights." Having called the debate about whether Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions should be edited by Bush a "catfight", how is our Dem leadership now supposed to argue that McCain caved on a matter of supreme importance? Having decided to sit on the sidelines as if this was just all a process story about intra-GOP squabbling, they just can't do it. Can they argue that the whole debate was phony, that this was all Kabuki? Well, they could have argued that... LAST WEEK! But that ship has sailed.

I want the Dems to win the House back so badly it physically hurts. Judging by the lunacy coming out of the White House and the op-ed pages of our major newspapers (see yesterday's entries from Dumb and Dumber), it looks like winning the House back is literally the only way to prevent a new war with Iran, let alone wind down the one in Iraq. But the Dem leadership has got to shake off this stupor they're in and get in the game.

The war for control of the House isn't lost -- far from it. The odds are Dems win. But there's no way we should be saying "Heckuva job, Brownie" to Reid, Pelosi and Emmanuel for this. By hiding under the bed and letting the GOP run this play unopposed, they blew this battle BIGTIME.

OK folks we are all standing around complaining about the Democrats as if they actually have the power to stop this "compromise" bill. If it is as bad as I have heard ultimately the courts will cut it down. In th meantime, why don't we say, "we need to study the bill, oh by the way, what are we doing about Iraq? And what is all this I hear about Iran?"

I read a few sites that include far right rank and file. To hear them talk you would think we are about to invade Iran. They are all repeating the "Iranians are going to kill us, the Iranians are going to kill us, they hate our religion, they want us to adopt Shara law" line.

How about asking George what Army he intends to use to invade Iran? We can't use the army in Iraq. It is going to stay the course.

Yhe Dems need to start diffusing this Iran adventure now, by loudly drawing parallels with the lead-up to Iraq. Who knows? The public might even pay attention this time.

at this point it looks like the three Republican "moderates" gave in completely.

I don't think anyone could have anticipated the three so-called Republican "moderates" giving in completely.

Ron, the Democrats have the power to clearly and aggressivley fight to win this election. That's what all the fuss is about. And no, "we'll study it and get back to you later" isn't going to cut it, any more than "Sure, we'll sign all the Preznit's bills into law and let the courts evaluate them later." Legislation matters. And the politics of it matter.

Yes, it would be great if this campaign were being fought on our issues only. If we can change the subject to Iraq, great. That's a great issue for us. But wishing doesn't make it so. I'm sure the Republicans wished the economy wasn't a big campaign issue in 1992... but it was. So here we are, in the campaign we're actually in. You can't just fight on the issues you like and hide from the rest of them. We should fight like hell to frame the debate in a way that is advantageous for our side, but we can't just hit the snooze button when the frame isn't the one we'd hoped for.

What did Kevin know and when did he know it?

Has the Washington Monthly taken money from John Warner? Did they give it to Kevin?

Patience, bobbo, nepeta, Al, Stuart, Ugh, Linus, James, Marcu$, notthere, Greg, ahem, Taurtle, Ben, AkaDad, Robbiemack, Kenji, Howard, Craigie, ex-liberal, Ron, eric, exasperanto, Ugly:

Bush was right. I would know. I lived through both World Wars. In fact, I was President the whole time.

Thanks for walking staight into our sucker punch again Kevin. Can't you see the whole purpose of this exercise was to prove nothing would satisfy you Blame America First types to the swing voters?
If chilly air conditioners or the wrong mattresses are diabolical outrages, what exactly do you propose for a definition? Is a high cholestrol diet an insult to human dignity? How about being questioned by a woman or a racial minority if you don't like it?

What does it say about the United States that the major topic of the day - and apparently the only thing that the President of the United States is able to think about - is how much torture the laws of the country will allow?

And, please, can we all stop referring to 'St. McCain'? When has he ever, EVER, engaged in anything but sheer opportunism?

I say we torture them until they freely admit that we are more civilized then they are.

Played like a fiddle...ONE MORE TIME...just what will it take to wake up the braindead boobs in this country...another war/another attack/another blowjob?

"Three rebel senators": Warner, McCain, and Graham. Ha.

It would be instructive to invite the administration to demonstrate publicly the techniques to be sanctioned, preferably on senators who support the legislation enough to volunteer for "interrogation".

Eric

Thanks for the slap in the face. I don't know whether to hug you or to turn you in to the human rights watchdogs.

The issue is not whether we stand against torture, but how.

Clearly Rove has carefully scripted this entire episode. We have to change the subject. Time is running out. Another day we let him set the discussion agenda is another day lost.

And this threshold doesn't seem to prohibit, for example, stress positions, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, or hypothermia.

Doesn't it make you PROUD to know that this kind of thing is being done in your name? Even PROUDER STILL that you and I are PAYING for it?

Oh, say can you see . . . [/music] !!!

Disgusting. What the hell has happened to us, anyway?

I guess the James Webb campaign against Senator George Allen finally found it's voice: "My opponent, George Allen, is a Jew!"