Wednesday, September 13, 2006

President Bush & Matt Lauer.....

I would like to see, after YOU watch this video - how you feel about this subject. Many people have varied opinions on this particular topic.
I'm interested to see how my readers feel. Please use comments below.

(click on arrow and turn up the volume)


Anonymous Anonymous said...


I do believe the President has a VERY strong obligation to protect the citizens of the United States.

However, I do not think that condoning or supporting torture is the path to follow.

If you believe torture is a good path to follow than we as Americans are no better than our enemies.

6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Use it if it works. Don't equate Americans with these animals unless you can talk to the mothers of those two American soldiers who were cut to pieces this past summer.

Matt Lauer should stick to golf and coke.

2:02 PM  
Blogger Andy said...

Anon # 2 -

I agree.

Infact, I'd be more ruthless.

We need to stop looking at this conflict, in the as a "Judeo-Christian" viewpoint, which is primarily -- battle for land, or domination of one culture over another.

This is infact a clash of civilizations. The price of screwing up, and potentially losing - becomes that much greater when, people are more concerned with how we treat Al-Qaeda detainees, than they are with Al-Qaeda and their goals.

This is a no-brainer.

What precisely is "torture?"

Is it cutting off of a POW's or hostages head?

Is it pulling out their teeth and fingernails one by one?

I think it is. And, we dont do that....

Hamas,Hizbullah and al-qaeda do.

All the same enemies, just different names. But all with the same goals, and same common victim.

YOU and I.

4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's sad to think that people in the US think we deserved the attacks. Even if you agree with that then they should have only attacked an Army base etc. The WTC represented normal people, they could have been anyone. Anyone in the US. I'd ask those people who think we deserved it whether they'd trade places with the ~3,000 who died.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.

Everything is a risk/reward tradeoff. We fly in commerical airlines everyday and they they are safe to a degree due to the regulations in place around maintance. We still have plane crashes though, we probably could eliminate them but the cost would be prohibitive.

Preventing terroism is a similar situation. If we want to achieve a certain level of prevention we need to do certain things. Some people may get wrongly accused, false positives. Hopefully that number isn't too big. I'm sure if you asked anyone who had someone who died in Sept 11th if they'd be willing to sit in jail wrongly accused for 6 months if it prevented Sept 11th you'd get a resounding yes.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd rather be damned if it keeps us from having another Sept 11th.

7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


While I have no moral objections to using whatever techniques are effective, I support those like Sen. John McCain who have been through the experience personally. As much as I hate everything that has been done to America by these evil criminals, it is too easy for other countries to conveniently slap similar tags on our patriotic soldiers that are doing their duty by serving their country. If we say that because they are operating outside international law and therefore any techniques are OK then they will simply use the same rationale. I would rather have us roll tanks in Syria, Iran and every other country that can be shown to provide support to the terrorists as a means of pressure than resort to methods they are using. Sometimes the price to occupy the moral high ground is steep in the short term in order to occupy it for the long term.

Just my $0.02

- MM

9:12 PM  
Blogger Doodles said...

President Bush should be impeached. He has admitted that he had secret cia facilites, he has admitted he has illegally allowed phone tapping. And his answer is so what?? I definelty beleive that we should be able to use certain techniques to be able to retreive vital information. I do not beleive that the President should be allowed to go above the law. If he felt that certain things needed to be done, it should have been approved. He is not above the law. And his answer should definetly not be so what. Just a note: they should have sat down for that interview.

10:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home