The best words that John Mccain has ever spoken

These are the words of Senator John McCain from the Senate floor. Via his website:

“Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

“I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

“I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.

“The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.

“They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.

“What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.

“By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America’s security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.

“I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee’s report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.

“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.

“I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.

“I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

“I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.

“The knowledge of torture’s dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation’s uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9.

“Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ punishable as war crimes.

“There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn’t achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.

“Will the report’s release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that’s possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn’t mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven’t been a secret for a decade.

“Terrorists might use the report’s re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life’s calling for a while now.

“What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure – torture’s ineffectiveness – because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.

“Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn’t have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.

“The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can’t win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.

“But in the end, torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world.

“We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.

“Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee’s report makes clear that acting without conscience isn’t necessary, it isn’t even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we’re fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.

“Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others – even our enemies.

“Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

“Thank you.”

God Bless Him for standing up for what is right.

(via Memeoradum)

Has it gotten that bad over at National Review?

I hate to be the one say it. But, if I must, I must!

Has it gotten that bad over at National Review that they are now linking to silly liberal articles at the Washington Post that question that official report on President Kennedy’s assassination?

How hard is it for people just to accept that truth? The truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald, a military trained sniper and Castro sympathizer — shot and killed the President of the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who preaches anything other than this, is looking to fatten his pocket and fund his or her own cottage industry.

Personally, I find it absolutely disgusting that the National Review, a respectable Conservative magazine and conservative internet publication would even entertain such vapid silliness. I mean, it is bad enough that you have Matt Drudge linking to Alex Jones, who is a dishonest charlatan. Now, we have to contend with National Review doing that sort of nonsense?

I honestly have to think that what I read someone say in the conservative blogosphere once; that it is as if the conservative world is being invaded by the crazy people. Sometimes, I think this person was absolutely correct.

How ironic: Black cop kills white youth — Media and Feds totally silent

Funny how this works. It was the same with my late cousin in 1994. My cousin was white and police involved were black and latino. No media frenzy, no government, nothing.

The story:

While Ferguson, Missouri, burns with racism and rioting, misinformation and mayhem over the Michael Brown shooting, another American city is also grappling with the death of an unarmed young man at the hands of police. The incident occurred just two days after the Ferguson event, but, unlike in that case, where a white cop shot a black youth, in this instance the races are reversed. Unlike in Ferguson, there is no allegation that the young man attacked the officer. And there is another difference:

The national media, Attorney General Holder, and Barack Obama are silent.

The young man was 20-year-old Salt Lake City resident and father-to-be Dillon Taylor. Taylor was leaving the 2102 South State Street 7-Eleven on August 11 with his brother, Jerrail Taylor, and cousin, Adam Thayne, when the incident occurred.

Read the rest at The New American: Black Cop Kills Unarmed White Youth — Media and Feds Silent.

Thug Michael Brown was shot in the front, and not in the back as the lying liberal media said

The money quotes via The New York Times, which come via Darlene over at Protein Wisdom:

Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found. One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said. Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front. 

And….:

Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds. “This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.” He stressed that his information does not assign blame or justify the shooting.We need more information; for example, the police should be examining the automobile to see if there is gunshot residue in the police car,” he said. Dr. Baden, 80, is a well-known New York-based medical examiner, who is one of only about 400 board-certified forensic pathologists in the nation. He reviewed the autopsies of both President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and has performed more than 20,000 autopsies himself. 

So, you see, the media lied. The black liberal activists lied. Just like the black radicals lied when they said that a black man was shot, face down at a blind pig in Detroit; which sparked the 1967 riots in Detroit. It’s all the same, start a rumor,rile the people up and force change. This is how the left works, they have been doing it for years.

Others: (via Memeorandum Politicoprotein wisdomNational ReviewFox NewsBusiness InsiderLiberalandWashington PostThe Gateway PunditFront Page MagazineRTSt. Louis Post-DispatchMediaiteBoing Boing,Independent Journal ReviewDaily KosJustOneMinuteShakesvilleGawkerSOOPERMEXICANBooman TribuneSt. Louis Public RadioGuardianTalking Points MemoTwitchyColorlinesPolitical Insider blog,Hit & RunClash DailyHot AirVox PopoliPrairie WeatherHinterland GazetteThe Daily BanterWWBT-TVThinkProgressThe Daily CallerNew York’s PIX11CBS St. LouisThe Moderate VoiceMashable,Wall Street JournalThe Jawa ReportLittle Green FootballsFOX2now.comTalkLeftAssociated Press,Progressives TodayCNN and Reuters

Whoa: NYT supposedly fires female executive editor for demanding equal pay

I missed this yesterday, because my Dad’s been in the hospital for the past week. He is coming home today. The doctor said he had COPD; and thought at first that he might have had a light heart attack, but yesterday told me, that he doubted that now.

Anyhow, this one must have hit late yesterday and I missed it.

Via The New Yorker Blog Currency:

Fellow-journalists and others scrambled to find out what had happened. Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects …” Abramson chose not to attend the announcement, and not to pretend that she had volunteered to step down.

As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, has had to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson had also been at the Times for many fewer years than Keller, having spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, accounting for some of the pension disparity. (I was also told by another friend of hers that the pay gap with Keller has since been closed.) But, to women at an institution that was once sued by its female employees for discriminatory practices, the question brings up ugly memories. Whether Abramson was right or wrong, both sides were left unhappy.

Needless to say, both side of the political aisle are all over this. Seems that the NYT is taking its cue from the 2008 election, where a black man basically pushed out a white woman; ironic isn’t it? What was this thing about the “War on women” that the Democrats are always yowling on about all the time?

Related:

Blogger reactions:  Business Insider, GuardianThe Moderate VoiceHot AirPoliticoTaylor MarshFiredoglake,MediaiteJezebelGawkerCapital New YorkPatterico’s PontificationsTalking Points MemoThe Huffington PostThe Daily CallerPoynterViking PunditLawyers, Guns & Money and Eschatonmore atMediagazer »Fox NewsCNNMoney.comBuzzFeedBusiness InsiderYahoo! NewsThinkProgress,Hot AirNational ReviewThe Huffington PostMediaitePoynterPoliticoTalking Points MemoThe Daily Caller and FishbowlDCmore at Mediagazer »New York MagazineNew York TimesPoynterTalking Points MemoMediaiteThe Huffington PostEd Driscoll, Jezebel, AlthouseWashington PostNewsBustersGawker and National Reviewmore at Mediagazer » PoliticoThe Huffington PostNew York TimesThe Daily Caller and Poyntermore at Mediagazer »

The Obama Administration’s useful idiots and water carriers

First of all, before you read my screed; go read Ed Morrissey’s. He puts it a bit better than I will. 🙂

Quote:

When Jay Carney was grilled at length by Jonathan Karl of ABC News over an email outlining administration talking points in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack, it was not, by the reckoning of many observers, the White House press secretary’s finest hour. Carney was alternately defensive and dismissive, arguably fueling a bonfire he was trying to tamp down.

But Carney needn’t have worried. He had plenty of backup.

He had The New Republic’s Brian Beutler dismissing Benghazi as “nonsense.” He had Slate’s David Weigel, along with The Washington Post’s Plum Line blog, debunking any claim that the new email was a “smoking gun.” Media Matters for America labeled Benghazi a “hoax.” Salon wrote that the GOP had a “demented Benghazi disease.” Daily Kos featured the headline: “Here’s Why the GOP Is Fired Up About Benghazi—and Here’s Why They’re Wrong.” The Huffington Post offered “Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi Is Stupid—for the GOP.”

It’s been a familiar pattern since President Obama took office in 2009: When critics attack, the White House can count on a posse of progressive writers to ride to its rescue. Pick an issue, from the Affordable Care Act to Ukraine to the economy to controversies involving the Internal Revenue Service and Benghazi, and you’ll find the same voices again and again, on the Web and on Twitter, giving the president cover while savaging the opposition. And typically doing it with sharper tongues and tighter arguments than the White House itself.

via Progressive Bloggers Are Doing the White House’s Job – NationalJournal.com.

The sad part is, I used to be a part of that side of the fence and yes, I even used to read those blogs. What did it for me was when I began to see that the left was not about objectivity; but rather about propaganda.  Heck, even about Bush they were known to lie and distort the truth. The truth is about Iraq; is that Bush invaded, based upon the intelligence that he had at the time; and he didn’t “trust, but verify.” The truth is, our Government just assumed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, this was because the inspectors and our Government were being given the run around by Saddam and his Government. Now in hindsight, this was a bad choice, by Bush and Congress, of course. However, that is a far cry from Bush actually knowingly lying and allowing four thousand America servicemen to die. My point is that is what the left says about Bush, all the time.

So, now that Obama is in the White House, things switched up. They are in defensive mode of the President. The progressive blogosphere is really the White House’s useful idiots. The White House uses them, but, they keep them at a distance. The reason is, because the White House doesn’t like it, when they have the gall to actually criticize the President, which does happen from time to time. The sad part is that it is really for nothing at all. You think the Democrats or the progressive Blogosphere actually accomplished anything? Heck no! They did not stop the Iraq War. They never got Bush impeached. So, really, the Leftist blogosphere is a joke, in my opinion. Not to mention that they are really a hate-filled group, that defends things that I simply cannot; which is why I left them for good.

Just my opinion.

Other Bloggers, both sides, your milage may varyThe Democratic DailyCANNONFIRENo More Mister Nice BlogHot AirThe Daily Caller and Hullabaloo

Clive Bundy’s Son Defends his Dad, “My Dad is not a racist”

I was going to add this to my Clive Bundy posting, but I thought it needed it’s own blog entry. It seems that Mr. Bundy’s son is speaking out.

Via WorldNetDaily.com:

A comment by embattled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy about blacks and slavery was taken out of context by the New York Times, according to Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy, who told WND in an interview Thursday his father was trying to reach out to the black and Hispanic communities.

“They took what they wanted. They knew when they were there his comments were not racist. He wasn’t able to completely articulate,” Ammon Bundy told WND. “That’s just my dad. He is a very principled person.”

The Times, in a report by Adam Nagourney, said Cliven Bundy, in a daily meeting Saturday with reporters and photographers covering his case, made the comments that critics are calling racist.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Nagourney quoted Bundy saying.

Bundy was recalling public housing projects in North Las Vegas.

“And in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids – and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch – they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Ammon Bundy told WND: “I was there standing right beside my father when he made those comments. He was reaching out to the black community.”

He explained his father was commenting on the fact that while blacks were “in slavery on plantations, now because of the welfare system, they continue to be in slavery.”

“He desires the black community to have freedom,” Ammon Bundy said.

“Growing up around him, and being beside him, I never once heard him say anything negative about any race,” Ammon Bundy said. “I wish I could say that about everyone else I’ve been around. The black community, the white community, they joke back and forth. My father’s never lowered himself.”

Of course, “his message was taken out of context,” he said.

The point was that the government “has kept them oppressed,” Ammon Bundy said. “They’ve never been given a situation to be able to thrive, get themselves out of slavery.”

Which is what I figured, the liberal media was lying in wait for this man to say something that would offend others and they got their story. Kudos who Mr. Bundy’s son for standing up for his daddy.