This is why I think Mitt Romney is who we need running this country...

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I do not agree with DJ on this issue at all but I have to point out that the WTC was attacked during Clinton's administration.

What about counting our embassies as US soil as well?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I do not agree with DJ on this issue at all but I have to point out that the WTC was attacked during Clinton's administration.

I have found the lack of attacks since 9/11/2001 to be a rather unpersuasive fact supporting our approach. How long passed between the two WTC attacks? (about 8 years) 6 years without a major attack is not that long.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

I have found the lack of attacks since 9/11/2001 to be a rather unpersuasive fact supporting our approach. How long passed between the two WTC attacks? (about 8 years) 6 years without a major attack is not that long.

I think it is very hard to parse out cause and effect here. I agree that it is not that long a period. On the other hand, my sense is that the last six years has been a period where there has been a massive up tick (for obvious reasons) in the number of people who attempt or want to attempt attacks. I think we have stopped many of them. So while I agree that it is not conclusive evidence, I don't agree that it has no persuasive value.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think it is very hard to parse out cause and effect here. I agree that it is not that long a period. On the other hand, my sense is that the last six years has been a period where there has been a massive up tick (for obvious reasons) in the number of people who attempt or want to attempt attacks. I think we have stopped many of them. So while I agree that it is not conclusive evidence, I don't agree that it has no persuasive value.

Of course your reasoning then turns the fact into an indictment of our current approach, as the up tick results from the measures we have taken to prevent them.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

What about counting our embassies as US soil as well?

I was thinking it was during Bush 1's tenure. My mistake.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

Does decisive to you equal opening up your mouth and putting everything out there even admittedly "not really big priorities such as water boarding" in your mind? Is discretion not the better part of valor? Would you consider that a strong leadership quality. And criticizing his hair has what to do with his politics? I honestly believe sometimes that we have been poisoned by the Ricky Lake society for so long now that it is as if we all feel entitled to hear the good the bad and the ugly about everyone. It is a sad day when a presidential election needs to be held in a Jerry Springer forum for so many to feel that they really got to know the candidate.

I guess where you and I disagree on this topic is not whether waterboarding is a big deal, but rather, whether the act of defining waterboarding as torture is a big deal. I am of the opinion that Mitt saying, "Yes it is," or "No, it isnt," is not a big deal. It doesnt put our country at risk, nor does it create a "Jerry Springer" atmosphere.

You seem to be suggesting that Mitt was about the only candidate up on stage that acted in the interests of our national security by refusing to answer with a clear yes or no. By definition, you are implying that McCain has now put our country at a greater risk by answering emphatically. I just dont see how you can suggest that with a straight face.

Does this logic extend to other issues? Should Mitt not talk about his thoughts on immigration? After all, we dont want to embolden more illegals to cross the border. Let's keep our policies a secret...

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I guess where you and I disagree on this topic is not whether waterboarding is a big deal, but rather, whether the act of defining waterboarding as torture is a big deal. I am of the opinion that Mitt saying, "Yes it is," or "No, it isnt," is not a big deal. It doesnt put our country at risk, nor does it create a "Jerry Springer" atmosphere.

You seem to be suggesting that Mitt was about the only candidate up on stage that acted in the interests of our national security by refusing to answer with a clear yes or no. By definition, you are implying that McCain has now put our country at a greater risk by answering emphatically. I just dont see how you can suggest that with a straight face.

Does this logic extend to other issues? Should Mitt not talk about his thoughts on immigration? After all, we don't want to embolden more illegals to cross the border. Let's keep our policies a secret...

and I myself have served during the Balkan wars I can tell you that everything that hits the media is parsed and evaluated on both sides. You can be sure that yes, Jihadists are listening and are paying attention. I was involved in several investigations with CID back in the early 90's just because of three phone calls. One was an Arab correspondence out of Switzerland regarding securing a load of M16's, the other even more disturbing at the time was a Croatian national out of Sweden wanting to secure MIG20's for the fledgling Croatian Military (remember this was during war time) and I was in the active Theater. However the call that created the most stir and in fact the most concern was the one asking about interrogation techniques. An individual who claimed to be Jewish (later found out to be Lebanese) contacted a Specialist stationed in Germany and began asking questions about how far would the MI would go in getting answers from prisoners.

So yes call me paranoid, but I take any public disclosure of military interrogation policy/techniques very seriously. And I think Waters went way too far by calling Romney evil because he did not want this discussion out in a public forum. Romney was clear that he was against torture. IMO that should be sufficient. I think he was the only candidate that actually was sentient enough to realize that loose lips can in fact sink ships.

The thing about this issue is that the US policy on torture has long been clear. We don't do it. Of course we all know that individuals and small groups have been known to take things into their own hands which has lead to Abu Ghraib type situations. The media gets a hold of this and creates a huge stink which while it is important that these situations are dealt with according to UCMJ, the hype and stink only serve to weaken our position against those we at war with.

So now all of a sudden candidates are somehow required to clarify if they are for or against torture. Why not ask candidates if they are for Police brutality of inmates. I mean it happens, and sometimes there are organized groups that routinely abuse prisoners or those in custody.

Finally my point was that Waters went to far in calling Romney evil for not wanting to disclose information for security reasons. Yes you can think that he is being paranoid and I am fine with that view, but to call him evil even after he clearly stated that he was against torture.

So if you disagree with me you are supporting Waters view that Romney is evil. If you agree with me, than you support my view that Waters went to fall in characterizing Romney as being evil.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

So if you disagree with me you are supporting Waters view that Romney is evil. If you agree with me, than you support my view that Waters went to fall in characterizing Romney as being evil.

I do disagree with you, but only on the points you and I discussed. I wasn't involved in the thread earlier, nor in your interchange with Waters.

I dont think Mitt is evil. I think he says whatever (or refrains from saying something) to get votes. What you perceive as pragmatism on Mitt's part, I perceive as lightweight political gamesmanship.

To whit:

1. Mitt IS evil, but only in the sense that we are all, as natural men, an enemy to God.
2. Mitt in his day to day life does not appear to be evil, at least not to me.
3. Mitt is not a great debater. He is decent, but not great
4. My belief is that had Mitt just answered the question with a yes or no, like McCain did, our country would be at the same level of safety/threat that it was last week. It would have absolutely no bearing on anything.
5. Mitt's Grecian formula weave needs a new color application, as his grey is showing
6. I probably know more about guns than Mitt
7. Your avatar with you and your daughter in scepia tones is quite nice.