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

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The slide into Putin-style democracy doesn't happen suddenly. It's gradual. And it's done in the name of security from outsiders.

He that can hear, let him hear.

Aren't you one of those guys that accuses Bush of "scaring" people with terrorist talk? How is this any different?

One of the weak points IMO of McCain's response the other night was invoking Pol Pot, etc. We are not Pol Pot. We are not in danger of becoming Pol Pot. Not instantly, not gradually.

It's a ridiculous argument. More pertinent, I don't think it appeals to a majority of Republican primary voters.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

For the love of God, the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. This may be our ultimate redeeming virtue, the commander in chief popularly elected by civilians. Truman made the decision to drop The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was also Truman who fired his chief general, MacArthur, who wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons in Korea, for insubordination. The President has to have the scruples to draw the line on what is and is not torture, to follow international and domestic law in the treatment of prisoners, or no one else will. He's the check, the people's check. Otherwise expecting generals to not torture is like expecting coporations not to put profit aboove all else, not polluting, etc. People who think we're constitutionally incapable of sliding into the moral chasm of our predecessors are deluded. Decency at a national level takes discipline and constant moral vigilance.

This exchange between McCain and Romney is about the most appalling thing I've seen in an election. Anyone with a sense of history and the miracle that is our republic ought to be totally disgusted with Romney over that exchange.

I was appalled, though not surprised given Romney's earlier comments on the topic.

His answer on torture was embarrassing, particulary with McCain at his side calling him on it. His flat assertion that, as president, he would not authorize torture sounded great- until he then noted that he could not provide any definition of torture. This second part of his answer effectively destroys any utility from the first part of his answer. If you reserve the right to call anything you want non-torture, then of what value is your assertion that you won't torture people?

I am also shocked that he hasn't even formulated an opinion on waterboarding. My guess is that he has, and that he would permit it, but didn't have the cajones to say so in front of McCain.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

he understands what it means to be a true servant of the people: No fanfare, no media opportunities to serve an inflated ego. Just THIS!

And yet somehow a camera was present to capture the moment and somehow that photo was leaked to the press.

He may do a lot of altruistic things, but this doesn't appear to be one of them.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am also shocked that he hasn't even formulated an opinion on waterboarding. My guess is that he has, and that he would permit it, but didn't have the cajones to say so in front of McCain.

Why should he formulate an opinion on something which might not be an issue when and if he's President?

I suppose the wise thing to do, would be to say, "I don't have definition on the subject, because those things seem to be in flux, but after looking at waterboarding, I wouldn't allow it." That would be the smart thing to do.

However, in light of the bigger picture, I can see him not having formulated an opinion. In the big Presidential picture, I don't think there's a secret book, "tortures I want to keep current on."

No, I imagine, they have first a line on contributors.

Second, a line on key Congressmen and Senators.

Third, a policy book on economics, health care, taxation, foreign policy, immigration, education, and many other matters.

Somewhere tucked away in warfare are tucked away policies on detainees. It's probably so far down the list that most don't give a thought about it until somebody asks about it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And yet somehow a camera was present to capture the moment and somehow that photo was leaked to the press.

He may do a lot of altruistic things, but this doesn't appear to be one of them.

So if we know about it, then it doesn't count. Convenient "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario you've worked up there, Cali.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why should he formulate an opinion on something which might not be an issue when and if he's President?

Even if we never waterboarded again, it would be wise to allow the enemy to THINK we might, rather than bidding against our own interests.

The only reason this is an issue is due to the overly emotional, hypersensitive consciouses of a minority who think their country is one drop of water away from becoming a totalitarian state.

Might as well grab your guns and hole up in Coeur D'Alene.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

So if we know about it, then it doesn't count. Convenient "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario you've worked up there, Cali.



Even if we never waterboarded again, it would be wise to allow the enemy to THINK we might, rather than bidding against our own interests.

The only reason this is an issue is due to the overly emotional, hypersensitive consciouses of a minority who think their country is one drop of water away from becoming a totalitarian state.

Might as well grab your guns and hole up in Coeur D'Alene.

I'm all for civil liberties and I hate the unPatriot Act, but I don't equate whether Bush's CIA waterboarded an enemy combatant tantamount to a violation against the civil liberties of citizens, resident aliens (legal or not). And we probably shouldn't do it, as it doesn't get us what we wish and it looks bad. However, for a country to debate minutae and to ignore how immigration will be solved is beyond me.

[JohnnyLingo]

Tex makes a good point... Mike, how is fear-mongering about how Mitt would lead us to a totalitarian state where we torture grandmas in the name of political expediency any different from fear-mongering about the threat of terrorists blowing up elementary schools?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Tex makes a good point... Mike, how is fear-mongering about how Mitt would lead us to a totalitarian state where we torture grandmas in the name of political expediency any different from fear-mongering about the threat of terrorists blowing up elementary schools?

One at its extreme leads to liberty, and the other leads to totalitarianism.

I'm not going to answer your stupid questions anymore.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

One at its extreme leads to liberty, and the other leads to totalitarianism.

I'm not going to answer your stupid questions anymore.

That doesn't make sense.

"One" (by which I assume you mean one fear-mongering topic) leads to liberty. Is that fear-mongering about Romney? I fail to see how posting about the perceived evils of Mitt on a message board with 500 members will lead to liberty.

The other "One" (fear-mongering about terrorists) will, in its extreme, lead to totalitarianism. I suppose that's a valid point.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

One at its extreme leads to liberty, and the other leads to totalitarianism.

I'm not going to answer your stupid questions anymore.

"Fear-mongering about torture, at its extreme, leads to liberty."

Mike, I say this with all due respect: that has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen you say. Really.

Your torture hysteria has driven you into complete madness. You are officially a single-issue voter.