Thanks for your candor. :o)

As for my other posts, I assume you’re talking about the fact that I, along with one HELL of a lot of other good progressives, was outraged by Hillary Clinton’s sucking up to the right wing in the primaries, and said so, in no uncertain terms. If that’s what’s bothering you, have another xanax.

you’re either obtuse or a fake.

i have seen your duck-and-dodge style of thinking (and writing) hundreds of times on the internet. it almost always comes from folks working from a hidden agenda – or one they think they are hiding.

as for this comment of yours:

“So, Mr. integrity, why don’t YOU answer the questions:”,

it is childish and a projection.

the “mr integrity” in this series of comments is so clearly yourself.

what an ostrich you are.

As far as myself, or anyone else, being a republican or a “spook”, as you call it, I’ll just point out one more time that today, Eric Holder said that the DOJ will block the release of any more photos of prisoner abuse.

If you want to impeach Obama for doing that, go ahead, but as I’ve been saying for a while now, we are going to have bigger fish to fry, and very soon.

So, Mr. integrity, why don’t YOU answer the questions:

Do you think we can get indictments?

Do you think we can get convictions?

And how long do you think it will take to do that?

Is there any chance that IF convictions happen, that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court might overturn them?

I’ll shorten it up here by saying that if you don’t think that Pelosi sitting on the information about waterboarding for all those years degrades any objection she’s made in the immediate past then you’re simply not smart enough to lecture anyone about ethics.

Did everyone see the video of Don Rumsfeld being called a war criminal…It’s great.

All, here’s the direct link to msnbc for the above-mentioned video.

pmorlan, nice work on the link to your blog, where you completely miss the point. Unless “it’s great” as a member of the choir to get preached to, there’s nothing interesting about the clip involving Rumsfeld. No matter how truthful, “shrill” voices screeching and calling Rumsfeld a war criminal does nothing to convince anyone.

You state:

But at least he showed these video snippets on air which is more than most of the establishment media has done.

Let’s see, the first of these snippets is from Larry King Live, which is both “on air” (live, even!) and can be considered part of the MSM.

Because Matthews only excerpts a tiny portion of the Jesse Ventura interview (and notably omits his background as a Navy SEAL), one needs to see a more complete version to appreciate it, like this one on Youtube: Jesse Ventura On Larry King Live Part 1 Of 2 May.11, 2009

King keeps trying to steer the discussion away from Bush and to light, inconsequential topics such as Obama’s joke from the White House Correspondents dinner, and that’s “he’s very likable”. Regardless of what one may otherwise think of Jesse Ventura, you must give him credit for seizing control of the interview to ensure his important points were made:

I’m bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we’ve created our own Hanoi Hilton…

The interplay between King and Ventura is riveting, particularly as Ventura makes the Guantanamo/Hanoi Hilton comparison: King first rears back and then voices an interjection sounding like a cross between “oh” and “eeuuw”.

Ventura goes on to say very emphatically:

It’s a good thing I’m not President, because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture, I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law.

That Ventura can thwart King’s attempts at diversion and make these points in the first two minutes of the interview makes for compelling video. Thanks to the live format, Ventura is able to avoid the normal media filters that preclude airing viewpoints like these. The Youtube version linked above has over 110,000 views.

ah, yes.

when i read tanbark’s screed, frankly0, i thought immediately of you.

the two of you share a rather obvious style – appearing to be concerned and outraged, but not really being so.

this particular comment of yours was revealing

and priceless:

“Sometimes I think that people are so consumed with hatred for Republicans that it truly makes them blind to the evils made possible by other parties. That hatred really does sometimes seem like a kind of derangement.”

so thoughtful.

so sweet.

so concerned with the welfare of the nation.

so republican.

you boys got to be SMOOTHER, man.

you boys got to co-ordinate better.

you boys got to learn to lie like a republican – convincingly.

you’re just another spook.

tanbark said @87:

“where has pelosi spoken a syllable about changing her mind about the evils of water-boarding, etc?

Maybe I’ve just missed that.”

no, tanbark, you did not “miss that”.

you chose to misinterpret my comment.

i did not state and nor do I care whether pelosi has changed her mind or not. i raised a hypothetical for purposes of argument- a hypothetical that destroys your argument. hence your evasion.

my hypothetical was:

orionATL’s comment @85:

“your argument [tanbark] …implies that no person who, at an earlier point in time, acquiesced to illegal or immoral behavior can, at some later point in time, change their beliefs or support for that behavior(discontinue their “acquiescence”).”

this comment of mine gets to the crux of the pelosi dunking. she’s being dunked because she MAY (but may NOT)may have changed her mind on torture.

on another matter:

tanbark says @87

“She is talking about calling into account the in-office behavior of american officials.”

Which she has just admitted she knew about since 2003, and said and did nothing about it.”

so what’s wrong with this, tanbark?

so she calls for an accounting of behavior?

you have a problem with that?

you’d rather NOT have an accounting?

you’d rather not have an accounting unless initiated by the virgin mary?

sham morals, tanbark; sham concern; sham commentary.

the key point to this tempest-in-a-teapot is that even IF pelosi knew all about w-boarding she can still call for an investigation and a legal accounting.