On Wednesday’s The O’Reilly Factor, comedian and FNC contributor Dennis Miller quipped that any President who chose to let Los Angeles get attacked by terrorists instead of using information obtained from waterboarding should be "impeached because you’re crazy at that point." He also optimistically theorized that "I don't think Barack Obama is anywhere near crazy." Miller: "But if you're telling me, if you're the President and they say, ‘Listen, they wanted to blow up L.A., we got some information out of this guy and we saved L.A.,’ and you look and say, ‘Well, I'm not going to use it. We're going to let L.A. go,’ then you've got to be impeached because you're crazy at that point. And I don't think Barack Obama is anywhere near crazy."
As the conversation turned to President Obama’s friendly reaction toward Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and other left-wing, anti-America world leaders, Miller quipped that Obama "doesn't have to spoon this mook." Concerned with the image that such public cordiality would send to those who fight against tyranny, he continued: "Imagine how it breaks the spirit of a freedom fighter to look up and see Barack Obama in a pas de deux with this pig. It's unbelievable to me."
Miller:
Well, listen, all through this campaign, I heard from Barack Obama that words matter and a picture is worth 1,000 words. Now, I understand keep your enemies closer, but you don't have to spoon this mook, okay? Imagine how it breaks the spirit of a freedom fighter to look up and see Barack Obama in a pas de deux with this pig. It's unbelievable to me. You know, Barack, he appears that he does have some part of him is a bully. It's just he likes to bully people who aren't bullies but who bully bullies. I just don't understand why he would want to be in a photo-op with this five-and-under extra player from the Sopranos.
Below is a complete transcript of the regular "Miller Time" segment from the Wednesday, April 22, The O’Reilly Factor on FNC:
BILL O'REILLY: In the "Miller Time" segment today, let's go right to the D-man who's in Los Angeles because we have a lot to talk about, beginning with this whole interrogation torture situation. You know, this is an emotional thing for me, Miller, because I know a lot of people who lost loved ones on 9/11. They live in my town. And they're all absolutely crazed that Barack Obama may allow a phony, unnecessary show trial driven by the far left. What say you?
DENNIS MILLER: I don't think he'll go ahead with it, because I think, I'll be honest with you, I've been pretty even-headed with the President so far, giving him praise when I felt he deserved it, been quizzical when I didn't quite understand something. He starts doing that, he loses me.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
MILLER: I'm off the reservation. And I think a lot of Americans are. He might view vacillation as genius, and that's why he's going back and forth on this. Some of us view it as opportunism. If he's going to start caving to lightweights like Patrick Leahy on this, you ever sit on your back porch on a nice summer night and one of those white daffodil heads that are all dried out flies by you? As far as Leahy goes, he makes that look like titanium he's such a lightweight. And if you're going to cave into a punk like him, you might as well be Harpo, leaning up against that wall in the movie. That's not caving in. That's giving in to something that barely exists to begin with. So he best not bend on this. You want to go after Bush and these guys in a show trial, you've lost half of America, I think.
O'REILLY: Listen, I couldn't agree with you more. Morris disagrees with me. Of course, Ellis Henican disagrees with me. But I think the folks-
MILLER: Who?
O'REILLY: Ellis Henican. We had him on earlier in the program.
MILLER: Is he the Vlasik pickle bird?
O'REILLY: While you were getting heavily made up, he was on the program, so you missed that.
MILLER: Okay. Ellis Henican?
O'REILLY: Yes. He's a good guy, but he is a confirmed left-winger. And today we find out, we found out three things. Some very big Democrats told us you were absolutely right, Miller, that Obama is not going to do this. We don't know if that's true or not. That's what we were told. We found out that George Soros is pushing this big time. And MoveOn, and we're going to play this commercial tomorrow, has an ad out: let's hang all the Bush people. Now, if Obama throws in with Soros and MoveOn, it's over. It is over. His presidency is over, I think.
MILLER: Listen, terror, you know, torture is a subjective thing. Some people view this as torture. Some view it as harsh interrogation. I happen to view it as the first shower some of these slugs in Gitmo have had in around eight years. So waterboarding doesn't break my heart. But if you're telling me, if you're the President and they say, "Listen, they wanted to blow up L.A., we got some information out of this guy and we saved L.A.," and you look and say, "Well, I'm not going to use it. We're going to let L.A. go," then you've got to be impeached because you're crazy at that point. And I don't think Barack Obama is anywhere near crazy.
O'REILLY: No, I don't either. But it's, I will say this about the President. He has made an enormous mistake letting it go on this long. He made a mistake yesterday saying he might consider it. Those are all mistakes that should have been put to bed a long time ago.
MILLER: Well, Bill, listen, it's worth it to him if he has accrued the approbation of Ellis Penican.
O'REILLY: Henican.
MILLER: Sorry.
O'REILLY: And I like Ellis. I just want to make it clear. He's got a lot of guts to come in.
MILLER: He's a genius. I love him. He's worth more than me.
O'REILLY: All right. Chavez, now I understand you were invited to dinner with Chavez and Obama, but you couldn't make it. So how did you, how did you see from afar? What was your assessment?
MILLER: Well, listen, all through this campaign, I heard from Barack Obama that words matter and a picture is worth 1,000 words. Now, I understand keep your enemies closer, but you don't have to spoon this mook, okay? Imagine how it breaks the spirit of a freedom fighter to look up and see Barack Obama in a pas de deux with this pig. It's unbelievable to me. You know, Barack, he appears that he does have some part of him is a bully. It's just he likes to bully people who aren't bullies but who bully bullies. I just don't understand why he would want to be in a photo-op with this five-and-under extra player from the Sopranos.
O'REILLY: What if you were the President, God help us, and this guy walked over with this dopey book in front of the cameras? What would you have done? Hit him with the book? What would you have done?
MILLER: Listen, I would have said, "If this guy tries to get anywhere near me with a book, I want him tackled. I want to duck and cover like the old bomb shelter thing. I don't want to be put in photo-ops where we might break the hearts and the spirits of our fighting," listen, Barack Obama can choose to put the nape of his neck under this guy's instep. He gets to get on Air Force One and go home. There are people that have that enforced on them on a day-to-day basis. Talk to Maria Conchita Alonzo about this. It was a heart-breaking gesture, it is a heart-breaking gesture for him to do that.
O'REILLY: All right. And talk about heart-breaking, Miss California loses the USA title because she supports traditional marriage. And you say?
MILLER: Billy, I'm a traditionalist. I like my beauty pageants. I like a chick in a bikini shooting an arrow through a tomatillo at 30 paces while singing MacArthur Park, so I don't get this whole brave new world. But all I know is we live in a peculiar time in history where you can lose a beauty pageant saying the same thing that will not have cost you the American presidency. I believe she said the exact same thing that Barack Obama has said. And I don't understand, if we're going to start turning beauty pageants into the UWAC committee, at least, at least let these women take the fifth if it's going to cost them the thing. Let's get their lawyer out here. Let's have Michael Corleone fly the, you know, Perez Hilton's brother-in-law in from Cecilia, or Sicily, and have him sit next to him in the courtroom. To me it's a beauty pageant. And if they're going to have empirical measures about a woman's height and weight, they should also tell her, "And listen, by the way, we're going to ask you some questions. And if you don't answer this, you can't win." At least hand that out to them so they get the handout and figure out whether they want to play or not.
O'REILLY: They should know the rules. Should know the rules. Now, we're going to have Donald Trump on here tomorrow. And he, of course, ran that pageant. So that should be interesting. All right, Miller, you were wound up tonight. I like it. And I'm going to set you and Ellis Henican up for a little snack next time you're around.
MILLER: Well, listen, I'm sorry I called Sicily Cecilia, and I'm sorry I called Ellis Pelican Ellis Island.
O'REILLY: Straight ahead, "Barack and a Hard Place." What was the best thing the President did this week? And what was the worst thing he did? We'll have it for you, in a moment.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




MILLER: Listen, terror, you know, torture is a subjective thing. Some people view this as torture. Some view it as harsh interrogation. I happen to view it as the first shower some of these slugs in Gitmo have had in around eight years. So waterboarding doesn't break my heart. But if you're telling me, if you're the President and they say, "Listen, they wanted to blow up L.A., we got some information out of this guy and we saved L.A.," and you look and say, "Well, I'm not going to use it. We're going to let L.A. go," then you've got to be impeached because you're crazy at that point. And I don't think Barack Obama is anywhere near crazy.














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Miller is my hero
April 24, 2009 - 02:33 ET by MeowMeowI've loved Miller's perspective since the mid-nineties. I think he is gigantically talented and smart, and I agree with him 99% of the time. He's got a good head on his shoulders and he actually THINKS.
He's my brother from another mother.
Obama: A glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. --RL
Trump can say anything he
April 24, 2009 - 03:22 ET by snaggletoothieTrump can say anything he wants but if he hired Hilton for this gig he knew what he was in for and he's no doubt happy with the results.
Miller is the man!
April 24, 2009 - 05:35 ET by chaosmongerI've loved Dennis Miller since the HBO specials in the 80's.
Donald Trump loves the outcome of the pagent because people have been talking about it most of the week. When was the last time Miss America seemed so important? (Remember I said "seemed so important.") The Don loves all things Donald Trump and controvercial.
It is Miss USA not Miss America
April 24, 2009 - 08:04 ET by kevinm13Not that I care, but there are 2 pageants. Miss America is the one that used to be in Atlantic City every year with the contestants parading down the Boardwalk. Miss USA is the one owned by Trump. Not sure if he is really pleased if there is a lot of talk but people are confused with which pageant he owns. It would be like saying that a particular SUV was dangerous but you didn't know if it was the one from Ford, GM or BMW. So Donald may like the fact that people are talking about the contestants on the pageant, he may not be getting all the mileage he should on it.
Back to Dennis Miller. He is brilliant, well read and informed and not afraid to give his opinion. He adds a lot of energy to O'Reilly's show. Ellis Henican shouldn't be allowed on TV. What a joke he is.
O'Reilly's show
April 24, 2009 - 20:01 ET by Kat Outta the BagBack to Dennis Miller. He is brilliant, well read and informed and not afraid to give his opinion. He adds a lot of energy to O'Reilly's show.
I've hated that he's usually only on O'Reilly's show on Wed. nights because that's been my Bible study class night and I've missed the show with him on it, including the one being discussed here. Not to worry, though...the class ends in three weeks and then I can catch Miller every week. :)
Miller hit the mark.
April 24, 2009 - 06:35 ET by supercon"Imagine how it breaks the spirit of a freedom fighter to look up and
see Barack Obama in a pas de deux with this pig. It's unbelievable to
me."
Barack Obama shows more respect to that two bit dictator than he shows to George Bush or Gen.Petraeus.
Disgusting.
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
"...you don't have to spoon this mook, okay?"
April 24, 2009 - 06:38 ET by Red Jeep"Imagine how it breaks the spirit of a freedom fighter to look up and see Barack Obama in a pas de deux with this pig."
Someone should explain to BO that everytime he hugs a thug, the picture of him doing so destroys the hopes and dreams of many people that the thug is ruler over.
He should have been widely criticized in the MSM for his actions, but to many in the MSM people like the Castro brothers and Chavez are heroes.
our presidents hug the king
April 24, 2009 - 07:53 ET by sajc05our presidents hug the king of saudi arabia and are best buds with china... the human rights abuses in these countries are terrible. let alone that saudi arabia breeds terrorist that kill americans. it's hypocrisy 101.
Spooning Chavez?
April 24, 2009 - 07:50 ET by sajc05Its is smarter ro have a better relationship with countries in south america and Cuba... Why should we let Russia, China Iran have a heavier hand in our hemisphere the us?
the more we ignore them the more powerful these other countries become in the region. republicans have to start thinking not reacting.
And let's not kid ourselves our embargo on Cuba has nothing to do with principle. the chinese openly spy on us manipulate currencies so our products don't get bought and are a terrible communist nation... they have our most favored nation status. why? because we love their shoddy dangerous products,
Truth in "teabagging"
April 24, 2009 - 14:08 ET by gopcongressPerhaps the MSNBC/CNN reporters can then report on "teabagging" ... this time for real.
_____________________
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist—The progression is clear as day.
Miller Time
April 24, 2009 - 08:09 ET by Tom PaineListening to Dennis Miller is like watching Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons. The humor exists on so many levels you laugh at something different each time. I’d love to put him and Al Franken on the same stage and sit back and watch Dennis verbally bitch slap him around. The fact that I can follow his scatological references to pop culture and 70’s sitcoms without missing a beat makes me realize what I geek I was growing up.
**Tom Paine
April 24, 2009 - 08:23 ET by pelicanmarshDream Ticket for an incredible Friday Night Fight:
Miller vs. Maher
Coulter vs. Carville
Limbaugh vs. Obama
A pile of dog crap vs. Franken and Biden together
(I'd still go with the crap, even against that double-team)
Oh, and I almost forgot:
Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews vs. 1 Green Beret
Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional privilege; it is not a license to parade yourself as a wanna-be intellectual jackass.
pelicanmarsh
April 24, 2009 - 09:30 ET by cvgbuckeyeHow about Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews vs. this old 63 year old Marine?
I would give 3 months pay to have just 10 minutes alone with them in an empty room. Am I bragging? "If you can do it, it ain't braggin".Oh, please Lord! They would never be the same; nor should they be.
Here's A Suggestion
April 24, 2009 - 08:16 ET by TruthMattersAs I've posted before, Fox or some other enterprising news organization should send a TV crew into the Libarry Tower in LA and ask the workers there "Are you glad the government waterboarded and saved this building from attack or would you rather have been blown up" Let's get the point of view from ordinary citizens who had some real skin in the game...literally.
Dennis Miller is living in his own world
April 24, 2009 - 08:28 ET by Smoking HotWhat kind of bizarre fantasy is it where the president decides to let L.A. go? I think pretty much everybody expects the president to act on actionable information. What few people expect is the president to authorize torture to extract information. In theory, the law is king in this land--no one has license to break it--and torture is against the law.
Furthermore, and this is key, torture is not the only or the best or even an especially reliable way to extract information. It's not just me saying this either.
What are you smoking?
April 24, 2009 - 08:55 ET by Tom PaineHe also promised to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and he isn’t doing that either. Barry Obama tied the hands of the Navy SEALS for 36 hours, refusing to give them clearance to shoot at the pirates while he searched for a “negotiated” settlement for the release of the captain. How will he act in a larger crisis?
Given that North Korea is working toward lobbing a missile across the Pacific, how long will he allow them to practice until they get it right? This guy is a dream come true to all of the thugs and dictators of the world. If we take him at face value, he thinks that all of the nations of the world will suddenly like us based solely on the power of his personality. Our enemies recognize his weakness and they will exploit it at every opportunity.
And don’t get me started on the definition of “torture”. We are dealing with lowlifes who cut peoples' heads off, and were wringing our hands over putting them in a box with a caterpillar, depriving them of sleep or making hem wear underwear on their heads. Unfortunately our wake up call is going to come when we get hit big time. God help us when we reach that point.
WHere is it a president
April 24, 2009 - 08:51 ET by BDWHere is it a president decides tolet a major US city be attacked? Well, since Obama is not truly willing to engage in all source intelligence collection, deciding rather to only limit his intelligence collection to the most "morally soothing" he has defacto decided to accept risk by engaging in single source intelligence collection.
Our enemies defacto exploit this risk.
Ergo we risk losing people to an attack. Can you say "Fertillizer BOmb in Berkley?"
Regarding your quote of "Furthermore, and this is key, torture is not the only or the best or even an especially reliable way to extract information.'
How do you propose to engage in HUMINT if your subject is playing Wooden Indian?
Imagine that we capture OBL and we find pocket litter on him that indicates his organization has taken receipt of 100 pounds of plutonium and it is somewhere on the west coast? He is sitting there saying absolutely NOTHING, pretending your interogators are not even in the room. All attempts to get him to interact with them have failed. WHat are you willing to do to get information from him?
From this guys position, OBL is gonna have a VERY BAD DAY.
Perhaps you are willing to see LA or SF become uninhabitable?
Get back to me when YOU have spent 22 years working in intelligence.
Are we allowed to put some things beneath us?
April 24, 2009 - 09:51 ET by Smoking HotConsider the Constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" in the Eighth Amendment. Do you think if we allowed people to be publicly flogged for certain offenses that crime would drop? Suppose we could prove a causal relationship between an increase in public flogging for car thieves and an overall decrease in car theft, would it be good policy then to bring back public flogging?
How about collective punishment? If you owe $10,000, should the person you borrowed money from be able to demand your family be locked up until you can pay it back? Do you suppose that would decrease bankruptcies? Probably would, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do, or even the most effective method to reduce bankruptcies.
You could make any number of similar arguments for all sorts of currently unlawful (and repulsive) practices, but then you wouldn't be arguing the position of the U.S. Constitution. Some things are beneath us, legally and morally. We are an exceptional nation, from our inception and even to today. Torture is beneath us.
That's one argument. I think I've already made the "torture is counterproductive" argument. We've trod some of this ground before, BD.
You're assuming of course....
April 24, 2009 - 10:05 ET by Prester John...that the terrorists are protected by the US Constitution. Do these terrorists have the right to remain silent? Do they have the right not to tell us what sort of atrocities they are planning? These guys are not simply violent criminals or conscripts picked up on the battlefield, they are war criminals.
And the fact is of course, is that if they told us what we wanted to know there wouldn't be any need for rougher interrogations, is there?
The problem is that it can be argued that these terrorists are not even coverd by the Geneva Conventions since the Conventions were designed to protect innocent civilians and uniformed POWs, not war criminals who deliberate target innocent civilians.
By rights (see for example what we did to the Nazi infiltrators caught on the East Coast during WW II and the saboteurs caught during the Battle of the Bulge) these guys can be shot on the battlefield.
~All of those things you cite
April 24, 2009 - 09:59 ET by choselife3xAre issues dealing with United States Citizens not foreign enemies of the state/people. Apples and oranges.
Once again, go here and tell them how awful the things they do are. Or admit you are a hypocrite who verbally attacks his own country.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Are we allowed to put
April 24, 2009 - 10:04 ET by BDAre we allowed to put somethings beneath us?
Consider the Constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" in the Eighth Amendment.
Do you think if we allowed people to be publicly flogged for certain offenses that crime would drop?
Suppose we could prove a causal relationship between an increase in public flogging for car thieves and an overall decrease in car theft, would it be good policy then to bring back public flogging?
How about collective punishment? If you owe $10,000, should the person you borrowed money from be able to demand your family be locked up until you can pay it back?
Do you suppose that would decrease bankruptcies?
You could make any number of similar arguments for all sorts of currently unlawful (and repulsive) practices, but then you wouldn't be arguing the position of the U.S. Constitution.
Some things are beneath us.
We are an exceptional nation, from our inception and even to today.
That's one argument. I think I've already made the "torture is counterproductive" argument. We've trod some of this ground before, BD.
Strong America vs Weak America
April 24, 2009 - 17:28 ET by Smoking HotI think we have different understandings of strong and weak. Strength may be standing by principle rather than making the enemies tactics your own. And spare me the moral equivalancy argument. Torture is still torture whether or not you think you have a good reason to do it. It is repugnant. It is beneath us as a nation.
All that would be beside the point if we as a nation couldn't survive without torture. People who refuse to fight generally get conquered. But up to 2002 we as a nation were doing pretty well, staying pretty unconquered, without resurrecting tactics from the Spanish Inquisition. Well enough for me to say we don't need that. Never did.
Strength may be standing by
April 24, 2009 - 17:57 ET by BDStrength may be standing by principle rather than making the enemies tactics your own.
All that would be beside the point if we as a nation couldn't survive without torture. People who refuse to fight generally get conquered.
But up to 2002 we as a nation were doing pretty well,
without resurrecting tactics from the Spanish Inquisition.
Well enough for me to say we don't need that. Never did.
And weakness will set you free due to increased popularity, right?
Question from a different direction
April 24, 2009 - 18:27 ET by Smoking HotWould you be in favor of legalizing torture in this country? That is, making it easier for the US to use torture--by properly sanctioned authorities of course. No more black sites, no more secret memos, etc. Hmmm?
No more James Bond
April 24, 2009 - 18:44 ET by upcountrywaterNo more information.
Nation adrift, screw the lighthouse ea smokin
Reagan VS 0bama
For criminal offenses?
April 25, 2009 - 08:22 ET by BDFor criminal offenses? No.
For national defense reasons? Possibly. It would depend on the case. Is the informatoin possessed by the person being interogated critically important to the nations defense and continued well being?
THis does not of course change the fact that waterboarding does not meet the standard definition of torture.
Regardless, I would NOT inform our enemies of our techniques in any case.
BD, No terrorist in their
April 24, 2009 - 10:04 ET by Scuba DudeBD,
No terrorist in their right mind, (I know oxymoronic), would ever bomb Berkley. They know that is one of the few places in the United States that comes out and supports their despicable actions.
It is very scary what Bambi is doing, I live in NYC and fear that another 9/11 is not to far off because of this idiot.
"The wrOng ONE was elected"
Scuba: You are correct,
April 24, 2009 - 10:16 ET by BDScuba:
You are correct, they would more likely prefer to base themselves out of such a sanctuary. But if you recall the Weather Underground, they had a nasty habit of blowing up their own safehouses while attempting to construct their explosive devices. Other such things have been known to happen to AQ members.
One could only HOPE for such an eventuality.
Criminals in the White House
April 24, 2009 - 08:53 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsIn theory, the law is king in this land--no one has license to break it--
So you approve of criminal indictments against those in the Obama administration who broke our tax laws? After all, they are criminals.
Can't have one without the other.
P.S. The AG said the interrogations were LEGAL. There WAS NO TORTURE.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Absolutely
April 24, 2009 - 09:26 ET by Smoking HotTax criminals ought to be prosecuted.
Surprised by that answer? I hope not. Not everyone interested in politics and policy is a hopeless ideologue.
P.S. The AG is not king. He doesn't get to define the law and he isn't infallible in his interpretation. Credible allegations of law breaking, particular with regard to torture, should be investigated and the actors responsible should be prosecuted.
Would your position be
April 24, 2009 - 09:48 ET by BDWould your position be soothed if we had a legal rationale that allowed such as a legitimate repriasal?
First things first
April 24, 2009 - 09:53 ET by kdizzydazeNo one said one thing about the President (Bush or Obama) not acting on actionable intelligence regarding an attack on an american city. What is at issue is that the ability to gather actionable intelligence has just been greatly diminished by the actions of our current President.
Law is king, huh? Well, will someone please tell that to Obama and his minions of leftist dolts out there? This entire issue and much of what Bush was trying to do has been politicized up and down by these people.
As for torture - we will most certainly agree to disagree on the limits and scope of what actual torture is but let me say that I believe that what happened to these scumbag terrorists was little more than what we see at a fraternity hazing on nearly any campus in the U.S.
As for gaining quality intelligence - please note that the techniques used that you may have found repulsive were only used on three specific high level targets and with proper medical assistance in the room. Additionally, these techniques were used only when "we" knew there was information to be had - "we" weren't coercing an admission of guilt out of them because "we" already knew they were guilty as hell but had intel that could save thousands of lives. And guess what, it did.
Does enhanced interrogation always yield quality intel? No, that is why (I believe) the military and CIA use it sparingly and on only the most high level targets where they are certain quality intel can be attained.
Sidenote - I find it funny that after throwing the term "torture" out there so often and so easily over the years, Nancy Pelosi was repeatedly calling it "enhanced interrogation techniques" on TV yesterday. Funny that as soon as her name was dropped as being one of the people in the room with Bush and CIA officials when these techniques were being discussed to them that not only did she not object but she and other dems wanted harsher techniques used.
God made man, but he used a monkey to do it -- DEVO
Obama and his left wing supporters
April 24, 2009 - 09:45 ET by OxyCon...have never considered Chavez to be an enemy. So this cliche that is being used "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer", is a non sequitur.
Yet it keeps popping up all over to explain away Obama's outward friendliness to anti-American dictator Chavez.
Chavez the Dictator
April 24, 2009 - 19:56 ET by Kat Outta the BagI have a coworker who is originally from Venezuela. She has a red hot hate for that dictator and what he's done to her country.
Rioting starts tonight
April 24, 2009 - 10:18 ET by slickwillie2001The Corner and Fox News is reporting that: "The Obama administration agreed late Thursday to release dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. personnel during the Bush administration. At least 44 pictures will be released by May 28 - making public for the first time images of what the military investigated at facilities other than the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq." (Ref)
President Asshat will be personally responsible for deaths in the riots that will surely occur. It appears he has learned nothing from his vacillation on releasing the last pile of secret information. But then one definition of stupidity is an inability to learn from experience, isn't it?
PS What's with the new shift of trolls today? ACORN money? Uncle George cashed in some stocks?
What fry's me is that the
April 24, 2009 - 11:51 ET by BDWhat fry's me is that the liberals will say that all future attacks on us will be BECAUSE we did the agressive interrogations.
Of course, nearly every country around the globe does that and worse, yet you NEVER see someone saying:
"Hey, I blew up a bomb in a schoolbus in Damascus because the Asad family tortures people."
or "Boy, I guess I will go shread the staff of a turkish hotel because they abuse their prisoners."
and we never see "Gee, in the persuit of Jihad, I blew up the Taliban HQ in downtown Peshawar because they beheaded an innocent American Journalist."
Any claims that the bad guys do wha they do because of our actions are LUDICROUS.
Whose president is he?
April 24, 2009 - 15:16 ET by dugbyAnother incredible act of betrayal by our illustrious president -- schmoozing with an 'avowed enemy.' He bows to arab emirs, buddies up to a self-proclaimed enemy of the USA, claims that Hezbollah has every right to commit acts of terrorism. With a president like this, who needs enemies.
boy howdy over and outy
Here is a clip of the
April 24, 2009 - 16:12 ET by upcountrywaterinterview
Reagan VS 0bama
Wasn't it the liberal
April 24, 2009 - 16:29 ET by eaglewingz08Wasn't it the liberal schoolteachers forty years ago or so who came out in favor of collective punishment and/or collective socialization in Elementary Schools and Middle Schools? I well remember teachers who punished the whole class in order to find out who did a naughty act (by the teacher's morally relativistic standards) and these teachers of liberaldomania would also state to various individuals who brought something worthwhile to class, if you didn't bring enough for everyone then you can't have any yourself. The seeds of marxism start early in the teachers' democrap republic.
ew...Right you are...and
April 24, 2009 - 16:44 ET by bigtimerew...
Right you are...and I remember well too.
This Nation used to be Number One in the World with educational scores (and Ca. led the way) etc...look where we are now.
The seeds of Marxism have blossomed and flourished well...and will continue to do so until all is uprooted.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart