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


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.

It's not tough to anybody who thinks clearly.
Basically, should the President be allowed to sanction torturing you,
your wife, your daughter, your son?
Can he delegate the decision to Nancy Pelosi?
That's what could happen if you allow the government to torture.
The "enemies of the state" don't have to be ragheads.
Anybody can be pulled off the street by the gov.
The government has no right to torture.
I don't trust them.
Subversion of the Constitution.
Obama was walking a tightrope, and fell on his ass.
The lame ass "ticking time bomb" strikes again.
Never happened. Never. TV fantasy.
I join Cheney in demanding the release of the "torture
transcriptions."
Cocksucking gov torturers already destroyed the videotapes.
Wonder why?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

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


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.




It's not tough to anybody who thinks clearly.
Basically, should the President be allowed to sanction torturing you,
your wife, your daughter, your son?
Can he delegate the decision to Nancy Pelosi?
That's what could happen if you allow the government to torture.
The "enemies of the state" don't have to be ragheads.
Anybody can be pulled off the street by the gov.
The government has no right to torture.
I don't trust them.
Subversion of the Constitution.
Obama was walking a tightrope, and fell on his ass.
The lame ass "ticking time bomb" strikes again.
Never happened. Never. TV fantasy.
I join Cheney in demanding the release of the "torture
transcriptions."
Cocksucking gov torturers already destroyed the videotapes.
Wonder why?

--Vic

As smart and experienced in life as you may be or I may be, neither of us
have ever experienced the level of responsibility the POTUS has. We can
have our opinions and ideas about things, but it's a different story when
one actually *has* the decision making responsibility.

How did Truman justify in his mind that dropping A-bombs on civilian
populations was justified?
Same with Churchill and the massive fire bombing of Berlin?

Eisboch

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:06:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

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


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.




It's not tough to anybody who thinks clearly.
Basically, should the President be allowed to sanction torturing you,
your wife, your daughter, your son?
Can he delegate the decision to Nancy Pelosi?
That's what could happen if you allow the government to torture.
The "enemies of the state" don't have to be ragheads.
Anybody can be pulled off the street by the gov.
The government has no right to torture.
I don't trust them.
Subversion of the Constitution.
Obama was walking a tightrope, and fell on his ass.
The lame ass "ticking time bomb" strikes again.
Never happened. Never. TV fantasy.
I join Cheney in demanding the release of the "torture
transcriptions."
Cocksucking gov torturers already destroyed the videotapes.
Wonder why?

--Vic

As smart and experienced in life as you may be or I may be, neither of us
have ever experienced the level of responsibility the POTUS has. We can
have our opinions and ideas about things, but it's a different story when
one actually *has* the decision making responsibility.

How did Truman justify in his mind that dropping A-bombs on civilian
populations was justified?
Same with Churchill and the massive fire bombing of Berlin?

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

"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 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.

"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