Huh? How is something a show-trial because it is televised?
The trial, in fact, would be an excellent occasion for the anti-gay right to demonstrate the cogency of its arguments with respect to the second class status of gay couples under the law.
There is definitely something to be said, though, for the willingness of people to compromise/be rational when they know their words aren't be recorded for posterity. It goes both ways.
Deficits do matter now, apparently. Because they can be used to attack Obama. Why is the WSJ printing this dishonest crap that simply ignores Rove's long support for massive structural deficits throughout the eight years he was in power?
Because I think the WSJ doesn't like deficits. They were just too scared of Rove to criticize the President at the time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't print things about the defect now.
Dick Cheney is the former vice-president whose national security expertise was central to his appeal in 2000 as Bush's running mate. Yet within nine months, Cheney presided over the worst attack on American soil in US history, [...] For good measure, Cheney also lost the war in Afghanistan and his closest confidant Don Rumsfeld lost the war in Iraq (the success of the subsequent "surge" will be tested this year as troops withdraw). Under Cheney, for good measure, both Iran and North Korea made huge strides toward getting nukes.
Not only did Cheney allow bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora, he also helped radicalize many actually innocent prisoners (three quarters of those thrown into the torture camp at Gitmo were innocent of any charges), and then set many of these radicalized new Jihadists free to wreak further terror on the US and the world.
Holding leaders responsible for things they often couldn't control is irresponsible. Show me how Cheney chose to let Bin Laden escape, then you can jump on him for it. Not before.
Regarding this, I'm not sure that the activities described were torture. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment