On Apr 30, 9:35*am, "mmc" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...





I thought Obama's press conference last night was very interesting and
also very revealing, now having 100 days under his belt.

A few impressions:

Very much in command and demonstrating superb leadership qualities.
(I have to admit, I misjudged him during the campaign cycle)

Expressed a new level (for him) of respect and understanding of military
personnel from top to bottom in terms of their commitment, professionalism
and pride in doing their job, however distasteful. * *I found this
particularly interesting because although he has paid the obligatory
tributes before, last night's comments had a different tone and respect..
It's as if he has learned something in the past 100 days. *Good for him!

Although on the record of opposing it (and outlawing it) he is still
struggling with the use of torture question. *It's obvious. *He's still
reading specific past rationales of it's use or not by other world
leaders. At one point he was specifically asked if he would authorize
torture if he knew a major attack on the US was imminent and the torture
of someone would provide the information required to advert the attack.
His answer was complex. * *The first words out of his mouth was that
"First of all, I will do anything required to protect the people of the
USA". *(paraphrased) * But then he went on to say that the USA needs to
maintain a moral high ground and that options other than torture are
available.

But. *He did *not* rule torture out. * His acknowledged first priority is
to protect the USA and it's people, and he will do "anything required" to
accomplish that. * *Interesting.

It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding
and wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in
one's two hands. *He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider,
not the polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.

Those of us in the media reporting and analyzing and those of us armchair
critics cannot possibly understand the pressure on someone like the POTUS
in deciding these types of questions.

As a commenter pointed out, the chance of the USA using a nuclear device
on another country is virtually zero. * However, the concept that they
*could* be used have never been removed from the table.

Final observation. *Pakistan. * Obama has identified the Taliban in and
around Pakistan as a major potential threat because they could gain
control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. *He commented that we can "not
allow" *a band of *rouge, militant groups to establish political control
over a government whose country has nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Hmmmm. * This sounds familiar. * *Indeed, Obama has had a crash course in
the "real" world in the past 100 days.

Believe it or not, it's for these reasons that my confidence in his
abilities to be a good, strong POTUS, while still pursuing a goal of
diffusing world conflicts has gone up significantly.

I am still having problems with his plans for fixing the economy however.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


I didn't mention bombing the Japs or Krauts in WWII in the most
massive conflagration in human history.
I asked a simple question about giving the President life and death
rights over an individual in a torture chamber.
There's a tremendous difference.
Could be you, your kids, your friends.
Americans. Innocent.
Presidents call. Or maybe delegated to Nancy Pelosi.
She may see some teabaggers as a threat to "national security."
I say no. You're free to answer the question as you please.

--Vic


A threat against the USA is the Commander-in-Chiefs responsibly, not a nut
case like Pelosi and the decision making can't be delegated.

Obama is getting a free pass on the recent photo-op event over Manhattan,
simply because he said he didn't know anything about it. Bush would never
have gotten away with that excuse.
It's not what the president does or doesn't do. It's what the armchair
critics think and react about the issue that makes news and reputations.

Side note on the torture issue:

I remember many in this newsgroup, including several of our left leaning
persuasion recommending horrific reprisals against the "terrorists" that
planned and participated in the 9/11 attacks in the days and weeks
following. Some of their recommendations make water-boarding look like a
recreational activity.

Eisboch

On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:03*am, wrote:





On Apr 30, 8:58*am, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:50:31 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
Same with Bush. * It's sometimes difficult to buy into the spin that he
was nothing but a a loose cannon cowboy.

You know, if the Bush administration hadn't been so secretive, we'd now
have a better understanding of it's inner workings without the spin.

He certainly wears the rewards of worry and concern.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't worry, Obama will release all the Bush era secrets... While at
the same time closing the books on it's own. Too bad nobody was called
on last night that would dare ask any important questions, too bad we
don't know who got the guided tour of NYC on airforce 1, or who else
in the admin has been given waivers to circumvent the promises Obama
the candidate made...

Yep, nothing good, ever.
And nothing bad of the Bush admin, ever.
It's getting old- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just making a point... I am kind of like the anti-rec.boats.. Seems
the group is overrun by Harry and his boys.. A little balance
shouldn't be so bad...

"mmc" wrote in message
ng.com...



I'm just another dumbass in the ethernet, but I have to wonder: if we have
drugs to make people spill secrets and we have been told by just about
every intelligence agency out there, including our own CIA, that the
torturee will say anything you want him to say to stop the beating, cattle
prodding, electric shock to the ol testees, waterboarding, etc, etc,
etc.... why the hell was this crap ever started?
Was it so the tapes and transcripts could be produced containing exactly
what the torturers were directed to "discover"? This "product" could then
be used to justify just about anything the big dogs wanted to do when
trotted out to the Senate Intelligence Committee.


Beats me.

I have a hazy recollection that the effectiveness of "truth serums", etc.
are really nothing but myths made popular by Hollywood.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:04:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


I have a hazy recollection that the effectiveness of "truth serums",
etc. are really nothing but myths made popular by Hollywood.

What, you've never heard of alcohol? I don't think there are serums that
will make you tell the truth, but there are drugs that will make you more
talkative and susceptible to an interrogators questions.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:16:24 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I thought Obama's press conference last night was very interesting and also
very revealing, now having 100 days under his belt.

A few impressions:

Very much in command and demonstrating superb leadership qualities.
(I have to admit, I misjudged him during the campaign cycle)

Expressed a new level (for him) of respect and understanding of military
personnel from top to bottom in terms of their commitment, professionalism
and pride in doing their job, however distasteful. I found this
particularly interesting because although he has paid the obligatory
tributes before, last night's comments had a different tone and respect.
It's as if he has learned something in the past 100 days. Good for him!

Although on the record of opposing it (and outlawing it) he is still
struggling with the use of torture question. It's obvious. He's still
reading specific past rationales of it's use or not by other world leaders.
At one point he was specifically asked if he would authorize torture if he
knew a major attack on the US was imminent and the torture of someone would
provide the information required to advert the attack. His answer was
complex. The first words out of his mouth was that "First of all, I will
do anything required to protect the people of the USA". (paraphrased) But
then he went on to say that the USA needs to maintain a moral high ground
and that options other than torture are available.

But. He did *not* rule torture out. His acknowledged first priority is to
protect the USA and it's people, and he will do "anything required" to
accomplish that. Interesting.

It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding and
wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in one's two
hands. He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider, not the
polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.

Those of us in the media reporting and analyzing and those of us armchair
critics cannot possibly understand the pressure on someone like the POTUS in
deciding these types of questions.

As a commenter pointed out, the chance of the USA using a nuclear device on
another country is virtually zero. However, the concept that they *could*
be used have never been removed from the table.

Final observation. Pakistan. Obama has identified the Taliban in and
around Pakistan as a major potential threat because they could gain control
of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. He commented that we can "not allow" a band
of rouge, militant groups to establish political control over a government
whose country has nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Hmmmm. This sounds familiar. Indeed, Obama has had a crash course in
the "real" world in the past 100 days.

Believe it or not, it's for these reasons that my confidence in his
abilities to be a good, strong POTUS, while still pursuing a goal of
diffusing world conflicts has gone up significantly.

I am still having problems with his plans for fixing the economy however.
Can't afford it.

Over and out.

Eisboch

If you were paying attention during the campaign, his focus was always
on Pakistan.

If you were paying attention the night of the election, you would have
seen that he understood the gravity of our situation and his
responsibility.

Glad that you're discovering what others knew before he announced his
candidacy.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:48:53 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


I didn't mention bombing the Japs or Krauts in WWII in the most
massive conflagration in human history.
I asked a simple question about giving the President life and death
rights over an individual in a torture chamber.
There's a tremendous difference.
Could be you, your kids, your friends.
Americans. Innocent.
Presidents call. Or maybe delegated to Nancy Pelosi.
She may see some teabaggers as a threat to "national security."
I say no. You're free to answer the question as you please.

--Vic


A threat against the USA is the Commander-in-Chiefs responsibly, not a nut
case like Pelosi and the decision making can't be delegated.

Obama is getting a free pass on the recent photo-op event over Manhattan,
simply because he said he didn't know anything about it. Bush would never
have gotten away with that excuse.
It's not what the president does or doesn't do. It's what the armchair
critics think and react about the issue that makes news and reputations.

Side note on the torture issue:

I remember many in this newsgroup, including several of our left leaning
persuasion recommending horrific reprisals against the "terrorists" that
planned and participated in the 9/11 attacks in the days and weeks
following. Some of their recommendations make water-boarding look like a
recreational activity.

Eisboch

It's clear that your perspective is skewed by partisanship. I'm sure
you can see the same in me.

Bush got a free pass to take us into a war on ginned up intelligence.

Not even a partisan like me would have blamed the flyover on Bush, but
I would have blamed it on his incompetent staff. I think whomever was
responsible for the effort should be fired.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:35:20 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

I thought Obama's press conference last night was very interesting and
also very revealing, now having 100 days under his belt.

A few impressions:

Very much in command and demonstrating superb leadership qualities.
(I have to admit, I misjudged him during the campaign cycle)

Expressed a new level (for him) of respect and understanding of military
personnel from top to bottom in terms of their commitment, professionalism
and pride in doing their job, however distasteful. I found this
particularly interesting because although he has paid the obligatory
tributes before, last night's comments had a different tone and respect.
It's as if he has learned something in the past 100 days. Good for him!

Although on the record of opposing it (and outlawing it) he is still
struggling with the use of torture question. It's obvious. He's still
reading specific past rationales of it's use or not by other world
leaders. At one point he was specifically asked if he would authorize
torture if he knew a major attack on the US was imminent and the torture
of someone would provide the information required to advert the attack.
His answer was complex. The first words out of his mouth was that
"First of all, I will do anything required to protect the people of the
USA". (paraphrased) But then he went on to say that the USA needs to
maintain a moral high ground and that options other than torture are
available.

But. He did *not* rule torture out. His acknowledged first priority is
to protect the USA and it's people, and he will do "anything required" to
accomplish that. Interesting.

It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding
and wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in
one's two hands. He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider,
not the polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.

Those of us in the media reporting and analyzing and those of us armchair
critics cannot possibly understand the pressure on someone like the POTUS
in deciding these types of questions.

As a commenter pointed out, the chance of the USA using a nuclear device
on another country is virtually zero. However, the concept that they
*could* be used have never been removed from the table.

Final observation. Pakistan. Obama has identified the Taliban in and
around Pakistan as a major potential threat because they could gain
control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. He commented that we can "not
allow" a band of rouge, militant groups to establish political control
over a government whose country has nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Hmmmm. This sounds familiar. Indeed, Obama has had a crash course in
the "real" world in the past 100 days.

Believe it or not, it's for these reasons that my confidence in his
abilities to be a good, strong POTUS, while still pursuing a goal of
diffusing world conflicts has gone up significantly.

I am still having problems with his plans for fixing the economy however.
Can't afford it.

Over and out.

Eisboch


I'm just another dumbass in the ethernet, but I have to wonder: if we have
drugs to make people spill secrets and we have been told by just about every
intelligence agency out there, including our own CIA, that the torturee will
say anything you want him to say to stop the beating, cattle prodding,
electric shock to the ol testees, waterboarding, etc, etc, etc.... why the
hell was this crap ever started?
Was it so the tapes and transcripts could be produced containing exactly
what the torturers were directed to "discover"? This "product" could then be
used to justify just about anything the big dogs wanted to do when trotted
out to the Senate Intelligence Committee.


The methods used were developed in the far east to extract FALSE
CONFESSIONS to use as propaganda.

The administration was trying to find a link between Iraq and al
Qaeda.

Why would you waterboard someone 183 times unless you were trying to
manufacture a confession?

This fish stinks from the head down.

America has no reason to torture.

"jps" wrote in message
...


Not even a partisan like me would have blamed the flyover on Bush, but
I would have blamed it on his incompetent staff. I think whomever was
responsible for the effort should be fired.


I agree. It was pure lunacy.

Eisboch

Try the heavy duty tin foil, I hear it works better... Either way,
there are as many folks out there who say the techniqes saved lives...


Dick Cheney?

People say it, but there is never any proof, and we have lots of
evidence that it gave false information.