Greenwald details the NYT and NPR, two so-called bastions of the "leftwing media conspiracy", as being complicit in white washing the torture scandal and allowing it to go on for as long as it has through the use of euphamistic language.

He is right to do so.

Be Well.

Obama is finding out that Bush was right. That is why he is continuing many of the same policies and practices.

The reason Tapper withdrew his nomination is because they did not want the Repubs to bring up the Pelosi briefings where she knew about all this and went along with it.

Bush was right, and we don't torture. The continuing attempts by the left and stupid to make a moral equivalency argument are not only silly, they're harmful.

Terrorists cut people's heads off.. we made them take their clothes off.. we waterboarded 3, which is a mechanism designed to give the illusion of drowning.. we don't torture..

The argument is as incredible as it is inane, and the idea that the most of the media is 100% behind Obama isn't news.. they worship him..

Terrorists cut people's heads off

Which is murder not torture.

American bombs blow people's heads clear off too.

Many more heads than the terrorists lop off.

Wot's yer point?

That yer "not as bad" as the worst terrorists on the planet?

Excuse Spud fer not instantly awarding you a Medal of FreeDumb there.

Be Well.

Terrorists cut people's heads off.. we made them take their clothes off.. we waterboarded 3, which is a mechanism designed to give the illusion of drowning.. we don't torture..

Accusing the left of making a moral equivalency, then making one in the next breath. That's the height of hypocrisy.

This world that you live in, do Unicorns fart rainbows too?

Can someone give me a proper definition of "torture"?

Seriously.

I thought it involved "permanent damage."

The NY Times has always shilled for government actions. They ran a series of articles on mining the sea floor for minerals as a cover for the CIA operation using a Howard Hughes ship to recover a sunken Soviet sub.
That's why their offices are now on 8th Avenue. They need to be closer to the streetwalker area.

Can someone give me a proper definition of "torture"?

From Websters

torture
Pronunciation: ˈtȯr-chər
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Nope no permanent damage involved.

That definition sounds like the day after the honeymoon, Taowarrior

The criminal decision by the Bush Administration to authorize torture has placed Obama in a nearly impossible situation. On the one hand, clearly Obama would prefer transparency in regard to the horrors and torture authorized by Bush/Cheney. On the other hand, Obama knows that if the truth does come out at this time, Americans will be endangered. Basically, if the World finds out in detail just how horrific the torture of suspects was, American soldiers and civilians overseas will be targeted for retribution.

So what is Obama to do? It is a no-win scenario. He either allows transparency and places American lives at risk. Or he goes along with the Bush/Cheney lies and cover-up, and stonewalls as to the truth of the horrors which the U.S. inflicted on helpless suspects.

Basically, the level of evil perpetrated by Bush/Cheney is so far off the charts that there is no "good" way to handle it. And it is contemptible for rightwing assholes to suggest that the reason Obama is now backpeddling publication of the photos is because he somehow now realized Bush/Cheney were correct. That is so absolutely the opposite of the situation that it is insultig to read posters like Sawdust (post #2) make that claim.

Greenwald knows words count, and so he is incensed that the terminology in use doesn't match his sense of moral outrage against Bush and Cheney.

Never mind the people being subjected to 'intense interrogations' want to kill each and every one of us. The fact that these Muslim fanatics hate the west and want it subjugated is a strawman argument in Greenwald's progressive world. The real bad guys are Bush and Cheney. It is Bush and Cheney who are the real criminals.

We are in a difficult position, we are under attack by a culture / religion that feels itself divinely justified in using any means necessary to impose their way of life on the rest of the world.

We have rules, they have none.

They use innocent civilians as shields, we do are best not to kill innocent civilians. The Muslims have nothing to lose, we have everything to lose.

So will our grandchildren pray at mosques?

And will those same grandchildren respect this generation for holding the moral high ground?

Given the current atmosphere where the practice of anything that resembles a 'intense interrogation' looks as though it will bring the Obama justice department running you can expect intelligence professionals to go easy on captured terrorists.

Information that might have been harvested will not be.

We have to expect to have mass casualties at some point.

So the Obama administration can't live with a gray area where waterboarding might be legal, waterboarding must be found unequivocally illegal so when the U.S. gets hit they can't be accused of not doing everything possible.

The Obama administration must take waterboarding off the table as an option. They must advocate the tying of our hands. Selective moral outrage demands it.

And as with so many positions taken my the Obama administration they really could care less about the long term ramifications, the grandchildren can deal with those.

Perhaps between those times they aren't kneeling towards Mecca.

Greenwald knows words count, and so he is incensed that the terminology in use doesn't match his sense of moral outrage against Bush and Cheney.

Actually, Greenwald is upset that the terminology in use doesn't match reality.

Never mind the people being subjected to 'intense interrogations' want to kill each and every one of us.

Never mind the fact that the vast majority of the people in Gitmo are either low level no intel terrorists or completely innocent.

The fact that these Muslim fanatics hate the west and want it subjugated is a strawman argument in Greenwald's progressive world.

It is a strawman argument.

Fer the most part most Muslim hate the west's over-reaches in their countries. Including bombings, invasions, and occupations. The west IS subjagating them, that's wot they hate.

The real bad guys are Bush and Cheney.

Fuckin War Criminals the pair of them.

It is Bush and Cheney who are the real criminals.

Can't possibly disagree with you there.

We are in a difficult position, we are under attack by a culture / religion that feels itself divinely justified in using any means necessary to impose their way of life on the rest of the world.

Actually they are in the difficult position of being under attack from a culture (American) and religion (Christian) that feels itself justified in using any means neccessary to impose their way of life on them.

We have rules, they have none.

If yer an apologist for torture you have gone beyond having rules.

They use innocent civilians as shields, we do are best not to kill innocent civilians.

Innocents are killed by both sides this is true.

The Muslims have nothing to lose, we have everything to lose.

The Muslims have already lost their sovereignty and their freedom.

They want it back.

America only fears losing western corporate access to the oil reserves in the region.

Moral standing be damned.

So will our grandchildren pray at mosques?

Not if they turn out to be athiests.

And will those same grandchildren respect this generation for holding the moral high ground?

Supporting Wars based on lies, torture and coverups are not "the high moral ground"

TBC.

Be Well.

Cont...

Given the current atmosphere where the practice of anything that resembles a 'intense interrogation' looks as though it will bring the Obama justice department running you can expect intelligence professionals to go easy on captured terrorists.

Yer kidding right? Obama is all about "looking forward not backward". He's not going after BushCo fer their War Crimes at all. "Go easy on" captured terrorists? You mean not send them to Egypt or some former Soviet sattelite shithole to be tortured possibly to death?

Yea, real soft is that.

Information that might have been harvested will not be.

Standard interrogastion techniques produced actionable intel.

Torture produced Whargaarbl.

We have to expect to have mass casualties at some point.

Ticking time bomb go boom? Before or after the commercial break?

So the Obama administration can't live with a gray area where waterboarding might be legal, waterboarding must be found unequivocally illegal so when the U.S. gets hit they can't be accused of not doing everything possible.

Would you be cool with an American soldier being captured and treated like the Gitmo detainees were?

Disavowing torture creates less terrorists and thus less chance of another 9/11 occuring.

The Obama administration must take waterboarding off the table as an option. They must advocate the tying of our hands. Selective moral outrage demands it.

There's notyhing selective about being morally outraged at torture if yer not morally outraged at that then you don't really have a right to be morally outraged about ANYTHING.

K?

And as with so many positions taken my the Obama administration they really could care less about the long term ramifications, the grandchildren can deal with those.

Actually, it IS the long term ramifications that Obama is thinking of.

Bush created more terrorists than Bin Laden with his stupid, counter-productive tactics.

Obama is reversing that course.

Perhaps between those times they aren't kneeling towards Mecca.

Are you actually stupid enough to believe that Americans are going to be forced to convert to Islam?

Moops at the gates?

Yer silly.

Be Well.

Spud,

If I have to say I was wrong in 20 years then we still won, I'm just sorry for erring on the side of caution.

If you're wrong our side lost. There will be no open forum where ideas are exchanged out in the open because the religious police state will have made that an impossibility.

What you don't understand is who's side you're on.

Just for the record.

I am very well. Thanks for your concern.

I have to say the Cairo speech was long overdue. We have approached Arabs in a one-sided way for five presidencies in a row. It's not like we side with Israel itself too much, but with the strong arm party leaders of that country. And while I do not oppose Gitmo detention, the waterboarding stuff just gives fuel to our critics both here and abroad. We are and should be better than that.

Zulu,

Unfortunatly the people you side with want a religious police state as well.

It's a sad fact that religious freedom does not have a long history in this world.

If I have to say I was wrong in 20 years then we still won, I'm just sorry for erring on the side of caution.

This "caution" word you use...?

Spud gets that you love your country and you don't want to see it weakened or diminished in any way by ideological extremist wingnuts.

You say "Better Safe than Sorry"

Spud gets that too.

Here's the thing.

By actually lowering yer moral standards to the point where you become wot the whackjobs always sed you were you ARE weakening and diminishing yerself.

By using odious, universally loathed techniques like torture openly or secretly in an ill-advised attempt to be 100% safe you are actually creating conditions that will increasingly make you less safe.

More Torture = More Muslim Outrage = More Terrorists = Less Safe.

Done the math.

If you're wrong our side lost. There will be no open forum where ideas are exchanged out in the open because the religious police state will have made that an impossibility.

Erosion of rights to free speech particularily over the internet is a real cause for concern but, quite frankly, Spud is more concerned that BigGov will do that to us long before any outside entities get the chance.

Spud imaginers it will start with a smattering of "worst case" lawsuits leading to a torrent of other specially selected lawsuits, maybe a link to a terror plot or two and that'll lead to legislation that will eventually increasingly erode one's rights to speak one's mind in bits and pieces.

Or not.

Just sayin'.

What you don't understand is who's side you're on.

Spud's on the side that wants to put the "Civil" back into "Civilisation".

Wot side are you on?

Just for the record.

Someone's recording this?

* shakes fist at sky *

Damn you NSA and certain excempt from prosecution telcoms!

I am very well. Thanks for your concern.

Glad to hear it, Zulu.

Take care.

Be Well.

Zulu-
re: If you're wrong our side lost. There will be no open forum where ideas are exchanged out in the open because the religious police state will have made that an impossibility.

I'm sure I have you wrong. You don't actually fear that militant Islamists are poised to conquer the US....right?

(Because that would be the most pant-pissing paranoid nonsensical crap I've heard since, well, since I last watched Fox News)

Diablo: I have to say the Cairo speech was long overdue.

Here here!

We have approached Arabs in a one-sided way for five presidencies in a row.

At least.

It's not like we side with Israel itself too much, but with the strong arm party leaders of that country.

While it's certainly true that American pols and the corporate think tanks that guide them tend to side with the more extremist elements on the Israeli political scene more often than not it's also true that America has sided with the country of Israel at the UN on so many votes now where it's essentially been the US and Israel versus the rest of the world that America has painted herself into a corner on the issue.

The world gets that only through American pressure can the Israeli Palestinian conflict be resolved even if the idea is anathema to the average American MSM outlet.

And while I do not oppose Gitmo detention, the waterboarding stuff just gives fuel to our critics both here and abroad.

Yes, if yer enemies are trying to demonise you the last thing you wanna do is act like a demon.

We are and should be better than that.

THIS!

Fucking A!

Be Well.

Spud,

If you misdiagnose the problem you will never develop a solution.

But you do have an interesting take on life. Which is good.

TaoWarrior

'Unfortunatly the people you side with want a religious police state as well.'

If you're talking about the United States than you should realize the state we have is the state we wanted. You need to ask yourself why the United States isn't a religious police state but is acutely Christian? Why aren't Christians intimidated by other religions? Why are other religions and atheists intimidated by Christianity?

=I have to say the Cairo speech was long overdue.

Here here!

I woulda lost alota money if anyone had wanted to bet me that Obama would bring up Project Ajax in Cairo.

#16 and #17

Yes!!

You need to ask yourself why the United States isn't a religious police state but is acutely Christian?

The US isn't a police state because its government is elected and its citizens have historically held their liberties in high regard. It is not a theocracy because the constitution makes this quite difficult and is not easily changed.

Not that the religious right hasn't wanted to turn the US into both a police state and a theocracy. Fortunately, the radical Christian elements are not that that influential.

Why aren't Christians intimidated by other religions?

They don't have much to fear from them hear in the states because Christians are a majority - albeit a majority that constantly whines about being persecuted.

Christian leaders do fear other religions - they fear losing sheep to other flocks and for that reason they constantly thump their chests/bibles and proclaim their own superiority. They also fear believers (and non-believers) coming to the realization that all religions say practically the same thing.

Why are other religions and atheists intimidated by Christianity?

Because many politically influential christians try to marginalize them, villify them, or force Christian beliefs upon them.

I don't mind if you are on a religious mission to hunt zombies at all. Feel free to ask about my religious beliefs anytime you are willing to buy the beer, ZH.

WOW! So the Zionist Jews "OWN" the New York Times - Big Freakin Suprise!!!

So, I take it Cadillac isn't particularly fond of Jews.

Let's not degenerate into Jewish jokes. I support Israel and appreciate their situation. I also happen to have listened to many an American Jew recently getting very pissed at Israel's heavy-handed tactics.
These are good people who are trying to convince AIPAC that not every Jew is a militarist. They also, on the other hand, do not wash their laundry in public for all to see.
I hope Obama's Cairo speech gives them the muscle they need to overcome the Sharon-Begin atavism.

I appreciate Israel's situation but I don't necessarily support their gameplay. However Jewish jokes are great and Jews tell the best ones. (Unless you're referring to AntiCadillac's BS comment.)

They certainly do, Gimme, just as Pryor told the best Black jokes and the rest of us should let them be.
I seriously worry about the future of Israel, especially with the atomic weapons proliferating over there. The three major religions of the area all hold the land sacred and that could be a powder keg. I agree about the gameplay. It has been way off base since the late 70's.
But I have met too many Jews who would agree with you and me to "blame the Jews" for Israel's current mistakes.

The American corporate media is nothing more than Pravda for the powerful.