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

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

His sons are part of his campaign. They are actively working for him (and nobody is saying they shouldn't be). They took the picture, or at the very least leaked the picture to the press. This doesn't mean Mitt isn't a good guy. It doesn't mean he didn't really want to help the family. It does mean that if he didn't want people to know he was performing that service, we wouldn't know about it. The only reason that point is mentioned is because you indicated in your first post that he was doing the service for altruistic purposes, which I don't buy. Nevertheless, I am glad he helped out and have no reason to believe he hasn't performed many acts of anonymous service.

eom

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

Yes the Teancum story is now going to be parsed to prove that what he did was righteous while Romney's refusal to define torture in front of the media due to his as explained sense of national security is evil Right? I was illustrating the ridiculous stances people are taking by calling someone evil for saying what Romney did. You can surely understand that? Do I know if he thinks water boarding is torture and should not be done? I do not know, however I am fine with his answer to leave potential enemies guessing.

You can call me an Ass because you think I am acting like one, which can be understandable at times, and I admit readily that there are occasion's when I fit that bill. But calling someone like Romney evil?

Also torture is not acceptable. In fact I think it is deplorable.

I am tired of people like you saying torture is evil and deplorable, and then going on to say we have no idea what we define as being torture. If you aren't going to take a stand on something as clear as waterboarding, then what in the world IS torture?

Teancum assassinated a person. What does that have to do with torture (unless you are equating assassination with torture, which would be difficult to do).

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

That quote is basically saying "waterboarding may likely be torture, but even if it is, so what? the issue is protecting American lives."

This was not the part that was interesting. I do not subscribe to that kind of thinking. However the issue of why Romney gave McCain a pass was what that quote was for.

Personally, I am not naive enough to think that we DONT torture people when needed, that we don't assassinate people, we don't spy on our own citizens, etc...of course we do.

My issue with Mitt isn't necessarily that he is tolerant of waterboarding. My issue is that he seems to have flimsy conviction that wavers depending on who is asking him the questions. Tepid leadership will embolden fanatics much more than the US recognizing certain interrogation tactics as torture.

I do not see Romney having a flimsy conviction. He has been rather clear that he will not basically discuss war tactics in the media.

Of all the issues facing the new President in 2008, waterboarding isnt really a big priority in my mind. But it would be nice to have a decisive leader in the White House, as opposed to an opportunist with a Grecian formula weave.

Does decisive to you equal opening up your mouth and putting everything out there even admittedly "not really big priorities such as water boarding" in your mind? Is discretion not the better part of valor? Would you consider that a strong leadership quality. And criticizing his hair has what to do with his politics? I honestly believe sometimes that we have been poisoned by the Ricky Lake society for so long now that it is as if we all feel entitled to hear the good the bad and the ugly about everyone. It is a sad day when a presidential election needs to be held in a Jerry Springer forum for so many to feel that they really got to know the candidate.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I can't believe this dork is quoting the Teancum story to justify torture. Is he serious? I assumed not. (That passage hurts my eyes the faux old English prose is so jarring.) I'd like to see Romney start telling McCain about Teancum. I don't think it works with people who don't believe Teancum was a real person (i.e., just about everyone).

Did I ever once use the quote to justify torture? Did I argue its merits as a reason that torture is acceptable? Seriously. I was using the reference to show that it isn't so black and white when engaged in war. Where does killing begin and torture end or vice versa? I was being sarcastic due to the asinine comments about Romney being evil or how his comments are so appalling.

Look you don't like Romney, I get it. No worries, but do you have to try so hard to find fault with him. To be Appalled. Straining at a gnat is not a good use of your time.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Oh please. You think if we announce we will waterboard that suddenly we won't be viewed as being "soft" in the Middle East? Maybe you haven't noticed, but they are used to people chopping your head off or feeding you to wild pigs while alive. We lose nothing by announcing we won't waterboard. We gain moral authority (or at least prevent its further erosion) and, more importantly, we do what is right.

keeping enemies at bay during wartime, and last I checked we are still in a war time.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

keeping enemies at bay during wartime, and last I checked we are still in a war time.

Keeping enemies at bay? This administration (including Cheney himself) have endorsed waterboarding. Has that helped so far?

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am tired of people like you saying torture is evil and deplorable, and then going on to say we have no idea what we define as being torture. If you aren't going to take a stand on something as clear as water boarding, then what in the world IS torture?

Teancum assassinated a person. What does that have to do with torture (unless you are equating assassination with torture, which would be difficult to do).

No I was illustrating that Teancum had no motivation for assassinating Amlicikiah(sp?). They were winning, they had the advantage and yet he snuck off in the middle of the night and pierced a defenseless sleeping man in the heart. If this is acceptable, than surely Romney stating that he does not condone torture and will not discuss details of his own definition of such for national security reasons during a time of war is surely also acceptable. Waters called him Evil for this, yet Teancum is a good guy?

Last time I checked the video response, Romney on two occasions stated that he does not support torture, however he was not going to begin defining what was torture. Sorry you do not like that response. Does is mean he supports torture? In your mind you seem to have already convinced yourself it does.

You may be tired of people like me for actually thinking this through. Do you think keeping someone up for days with music with immoral lyrics blaring into their cell is torture? I mean no physical harm came to this particular prisoner who was actually broken by this incessant hedonistic message.

Does breaking down someone spiritually constitute torture? I think it is. I think it is definitely torture, but the Geneva Convention, The ban on torture doesn't cover this type of behavior. So I guess it is okay? Not in my mind it isn't. Am I going to tell my enemies that we won't be doing these things to them? Not on your life. Let them create their own ideas of just what we are capable of. If they think we are weak we will most likely be forced to fight. If not, great.

BTW the reference to immoral music was actually done to one of the higher ranking Al Qaeda members, and it broke him after about a week. This actually foiled several major plots against the US. Does it justify it being done? Here is the quandary that during a time of war we find ourselves in. I still say no, but my belief system is such that I think there are alternatives.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Keeping enemies at bay? This administration (including Cheney himself) have endorsed water boarding. Has that helped so far?

or not, but I do know that since 9/11 we have not been attacked on our soil. There have been a few close calls, and some that the media actually never get wind of (sometimes due to secrecy as they are connected with other ongoing intelligence operations). I doubt water boarding has played a key roll in making this happen, and even if it has it is still torture IMO and I do not condone it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

or not, but I do know that since 9/11 we have not been attacked on our soil. There have been a few close calls, and some that the media actually never get wind of (sometimes due to secrecy as they are connected with other ongoing intelligence operations). I doubt water boarding has played a key roll in making this happen, and even if it has it is still torture IMO and I do not condone it.

We weren't attacked on our soil during the Clinton administration either, and that administration never publicly supported waterboarding.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

We weren't attacked on our soil during the Clinton administration either, and that administration never publicly supported waterboarding.

I do not agree with DJ on this issue at all but I have to point out that the WTC was attacked during Clinton's administration.