I can just about hear the discussion in editorial rooms all across cable land: "It's Ok Mitch McConnell is a Republican. They are entitled to lie while trashing the American government with out criticism." "Yep, you got that right. Make sure the new anchor knows not to as a follow up when McConnell repeats the lie this afternoon."

Where is the outrage? By now ,Steve, you must have realized that this country is run by people who think quite differently than us. Obama aside, and he has proven to be only marginally effective, the money that runs this joint has positoned the players and their platforms to pitch, far to the right. Not one democrat will push back for fear of being labeled a supporter of binLaden. The GOP knows this, you know this and I know this. Nauseating...

All part of the pathologically hypocritical, delusional, and paranoid strain of partisan Republicanism in America today.

Wow, we survived eight years of GWB, but it looks like we are going to be living with assholes like McConnell forever.

Ron Byers has nailed it. Perhaps the talk is not so blatant ... .. no, its not. The tinfoil hat of media conspiracy should be discarded for the truth that "is out there".

I hope the FBI has a nice little file a la J Edgar Hoover all about Miss Mitch. Would be a shame to see that splashed across TMZ, now, wouldn't it????

At what point, especially during an open investigation, does talk like this cross the line into treasonous territory. Surely these lies are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

"It's clearly a case for the military..." - Mitch McConnell

Oh yeah, they have a stellar record
/snark

A thought comes to mind..... that perhaps the Retaliban party's real purpose in dialing the crazy past batshitinsane is not just to through bloody red meat at the base, or to bleat loudly before national news cameras in an attempt to sow seeds of distrust. It may be to provoke democrats, who are driven to the point of frustration, to do something brash and stupid. Like a bully upping his ante to provoke an authority figure to lash out. Then the bully plays victim and files a lawsuit.

Perhaps the talk is not so blatant ... .. no, its not. The tinfoil hat of media conspiracy should be discarded for the truth that "is out there".

Speaking of which, I hear CBS has officially accepted the Focus on the Family commercial and has also officially denied the Man Crush commercial for this Sunday.

Where are the loud democrats condemning this POS?

Wetting their pants or something?

Mitch McConnell's comments about the FBI and counter-terrorism directly put America into danger from more attacks. How dare he put America at risk with his careless comments.

Anyone else notice that the only 2 groups who were trying to spin the attempted attack as a "success" were Al Queda and Republicans?

Somebody should make a career of just repeating Republican rhetoric directly back at them without any hint of irony. Just claim everything that they do and say puts Real Americans (tm) at risk. I mean it wouldn't be far from the truth but it would be great to see them be the victims of their own tactics.

Damn Librul Media will never follow-up on this.

So I guess Bin Laden has just joined the repub party, we all knew McConnell is in favor of foreign corporations buying the elections, now he and Bin Laden are in complete agreement.

Editorial boards and the "librul media" WON'T push this on their own. But they will cover the comments of Democratic office-holders if they go out and talk about it again and again.

The same applies to Shelby and the holds as hostages for pork.

Get a communication strategy, Dems, or reap the whirlwind.

So, which Democrat is going to go on the air and call out McConnell for being a chickenshit, lying mofo (or TV-appropriate equivalent)?

I'm waiting . . .

If you don't do that, the MSM won't give you air time.

Where's the outrage? Here's the outrage:

Mitch McConnell (R-HateAmerica) should be forcibly leashed, led from the chamber, and put on public display as a terrorist enabler.

Preferably strapped to the front bumper of a transit bus.

Naked as a jaybird.

While it's still winter.

Right behind another bus that's missing its rear mud-flaps.

That's the GOP for you: wave the flag and praise the military brass and FBI and CIA and everyone else fighting The Big Bad Terrorists, who are just great... except when they're not.

Mitch McConnell is a fool.

Anyone else notice that the only 2 groups who were trying to spin the attempted attack as a "success" were Al Queda and Republicans?

Posted by: GiggsisGod on February 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Is there really any difference between the two?

There are two ways of getting someone to talk. One, torture him. This "works' in the sense that the person will almost certainly talk, but doesn't work in the sense that he will almost certainly give false information or at best info that he thinks the interrogators know anyway, or will probably find out eventually. So, in the torture scenario, you get talk, but little valuable information.

The second way is to manipulate the suspect. Manipulation is what hard core salespeople do. For example, salespeople who sell time shares to people who won "free" vacations (pigeons) don't threaten to kill the pigeons or harm their families, but instead work all sorts of levers to convince the pigeon that something that is decidedly NOT in his interest -spending his limited funds on a condo he doesn't need and will probably regret purchasing before he even gets home - is in fact the smart thing to do.

It makes sense that, the immorality of torture aside, the best way to get info from a terror suspect is not to threaten him with violence - after all, this guy really wants to be a martyr and has already proven himself willing to die for his beliefs - but instead manipulate him. He's probably more manipulable than the average Jamal - that's how he got into terrorism in the first place, by being led to believe in an objectively false, totalizing "reality" that can't withstand critical scrutiny. So, the interrogator tries to get inside his addled head, manipulate him, use his beliefs against him, show him the flaws in his warped view of the world. That's the method Ali Soufan says (quite credibly) worked on the guys he interrogated, and appears to be working on Abdulmuntallab.

electrolite@12:16: Anyone else notice that the only 2 groups who were trying to spin the attempted attack as a "success" were Al Queda and Republicans?

Posted by: GiggsisGod on February 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Is there really any difference between the two?

Yes. The Republican Party are far more destructive.

"There are two ways of getting someone to talk" Posted by: Geoff G on February 5, 2010 at 12:56
I am curious. Is there some empirical evidence I missed?

There may be empirical evidence you've missed. A lot of it comes from Ali Soufan's op-eds - he cites specific evidence gained from patient, manipulative interrogation. He also relates how some suspects clammed up after he was ordered to stop the interrogation so harsher techniques could be used. As to empirical evidence that torture mostly gets false information, that's what the FBI's experience has taught it, and also why the Army field manual did not countenance torture. Also, the Adbulmutallabub case is shaping up as further evidence of the effectiveness of interrogation instead of abuse.