Gotta give him points for bravery: former Bush Department of Justice lawyer and "torture memo" author John Yoo submitted himself to Jon Stewart's questioning on The Daily Show last night (insert cheesy "enhanced interrogation" joke here), and it was a real doozy.
While the bulk of it was a mind-numbingly convoluted back-and-forth over what is and isn't torture, whether or not there are any legal or historical precedents for America's waging of the war on terror post-9/11, and how much executive power is too much; there was one crystal clear and very revealing gem buried in part 2 of the interview: Yoo says he never actually spoke to President George W. Bush about the legal justifications he was tasked by the administration with developing. Said Yoo, "I've never met the man."
Here's the full, unedited interview in 3 parts:
In Part 1 Yoo claims that America had never really addressed the question of what is or isn't torture until after the attacks of September 11, 2001:
In Part 2, along with revealing the fact that he's never met George W. Bush, Yoo explains how historically executive powers expand and shrink as wars come and go, and asserts that "our greatest presidents" were expanders:
And in Part 3 John Yoo sums it all up with the belief that at the end of the day, giving a president the power to "make those good decisions" outweighs the cost of "sometimes having presidents who make the bad ones."
lousgirl84
January 12, 2010 10:13 AM
I cant't watch mind numbing videos but I do love Jon Stewart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
monet768
January 12, 2010 10:25 AM
SCUMBALL JON WHO?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
georgecs
January 12, 2010 10:42 AM
John Yoo is torturing ME with his absurd fun house mirror logic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hey Obama - Get in the Fight!!
January 12, 2010 10:48 AM
Sociopath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
January 12, 2010 10:51 AM
He obviously has father issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
samtaylor1
January 12, 2010 11:05 AM
What a wonderful interview, it great to hear a spirited intelligent back and forth. The problem with journalism today isn't conservative vs. liberal it is competence vs. incompetence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 12, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to samtaylor1
What I see in this interview is that Jon Stewart is trying to follow the arc of John Yoo's logic and determine how it led to his conclusion that the use of waterboarding on KSM is not torture.
John Yoo, however, has started with the conclusion that the President has to use whatever methods are available to get KSM to talk, so the President during wartime can waterboard KSM if he does not comply with what the U.S. President demands. Yoo sees his job as justifying what the President during war time wants to do.
Stewart lays out Yoo's prior assumptions and his attempts to justify them in the third segment beginning at about 2:15. Yoo's "conclusions" were contained in the assumptions he started from rather then in the logic of his legal or historical argument. Throughout the interview Yoo is simply responding to Stewart's questions with a set of discontinuous justifications all centering back on his original assumptions.
Yoo's final explanation is that it is good to have built into the Constitution a Presidential exception that allows the President to make any damned decision he pleases. The added flexibility this allows to meet new challenges, Yoo says, offsets the occasional bad decisions that Presidents will sometimes make. Frankly I found nothing in Yoo's alleged legal argument up to that point that justifies that conclusion.
Stewart's logic leading to a conclusion will never be found in Yoo's internally logical but disjointed justifications for the President taking an action that he has already decided to take. Yoo simply never connects up the various arguments he makes into a consistent case. In the end, Yoo's case still rests entirely on his initial assumptions with no logical or legal underpinnings. Unfortunately for Yoo, America's system of law (The Rule of Law) is based on Stewart's logic, not on Yoo's justifications for giving the President to power to do anything he wants to do as long as he claims it is done during wartime. Notice also that Yoo also sort of tacitly suggests that "wartime" can be whatever the President claims is "wartime."
John Locke would have called the Presidential "logic" Yoo is attempting to justify as "arbitrary command." It is certainly not "the Rule of Law."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
January 12, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to Richardxx
Not to be too pedantic about it, but only Congress has the right to declare war, and it never did so. So doesn't that kick out the props of Yoo's key assumption?
Secondly, I agree with the comment elsewhere that Stewart should have pointed out that we convicted Japanese for waterboarding US personnel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
January 12, 2010 11:10 AM
Stewart & Yoo: Two of a kind. Shake both the geeky little shysters up in a sack, you won't know what crawls out first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
January 12, 2010 11:25 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
piss off
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
January 12, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
I understand why conservatives hate Stewart. He politely and civilly takes apart your arguments and shows the utter lack of logic if not lack of fact. All you have in response is invective. If Yoo can't beat him on Yoo's own ground, what are the rest of you supposed to do?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 12, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Talk about Daddy issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RuperttheBear
January 12, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Go back under the bridge, troll
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Cassidy
January 12, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
that was dumb
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fitley
January 12, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Hey nah hey nah, the retard's back.
Hey Sailor hows the hydrocephalic head treatin ya these days?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boycottfaux
January 12, 2010 11:26 AM
It would have been great if Jon had Professor Jonathan Turley on his show while he was interviewing Yoo . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eztempo
January 12, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to boycottfaux
I would have liked to see that, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
January 12, 2010 11:29 AM
I've never met the man. Is he an American?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
January 12, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to The Decider
Decider, Yoo is a tool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EH
January 12, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to The Decider
No Georgie, this man is a nihilist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 13, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to EH
Is Nihil one of those countries in Africa?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Ben
January 12, 2010 11:53 AM
This guy is a weaselly war criminal. . . HOW morally corrupt does one have to be even consider whether or not threatened simulated drowning (waterboarding) is torture or not. He should be subjected to waterboarding, forced wakefulness, starvation and empty pistols cocked and fired at his empty head. . . condoning and facilitating the torture of human beings is so far beyond a question. . . NOT TORTURING is an imperative. Its basic in the U.S. Constitution Amendment 8 of the Bill of Rights. No legal precedence? Has this so called lawyer ever heard of The Geneva Conventions. He should be arrested. Jon Stewart should have bitch-slapped his punk-ass. He has done more to endanger our troops and our international prestige than, well anyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Cassidy
January 12, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to Just Ben
you're assuming of course that bitch-slapping is not torture and a "punk-ass" is not a victim of sexual abuse... cuz that would be wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
serge
January 12, 2010 11:56 AM
I was pleasantly surprised to be informed a little more about Yoo. He is clearly capable of being nice to old ladies crossing streets. For purely legalistic arguments about executive prerogatives in "war" time, it seems he was quite the man to go to.
But, when you're wrong, you're wrong. And he was wrong. And he won't admit it. He'll engage in endless sophistry to defend his legal positions to the point that one's head will spin. Still, he was wrong, this country was wrong in what it did, and *we* feel the pain of that. Yoo doesn't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
January 12, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to serge
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
Yoo is employed as a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law. It's tough to keep a job or advance while admitting that when faced with the most important legal analysis of his life, he totallly screwed the pooch, both on methodology and conclusions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
serge
January 12, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to Mr.E.
IIRC, Yoo holds tenure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
January 12, 2010 12:02 PM
Yoo has actually studied the Constitution? Where does he get the idea the president's power expands in wartime? The framers were concerned about the president becoming a dictator, and though war would be the means presidents would use. The restraints on government, including presidential power, were based on that fear of dictatorship and their experience with abuses of power before and during the revolution --- in other words during unrest and war. Yoo's central premise is that wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dnegri
January 12, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to ericf
There are few if any Presidents whose power hasn't increased in war time. It has roots in the Constitution, i.e, Commander -in-Chief designation, but even moreso in actuality. Yoo is making as much an historical (and accurate) point as well as a Constitutional one. However, there is no doubt that Congress is usually a willing accomplice to this expansion of power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
January 12, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to dnegri
To be more accurate, Yoo dresses up the worst examples of overreaching by Presidents with the blessings of Congress (FDR rounding up Japanese Americans, for example, or killing Nazi sabatuers) and turns it into a Constitutionally blessed, completely appropriate thing to do without Congressional approval or even public knowledge. In fact, Yoo goes so far as to say the President can simply disregard all other parts of the Constitution other than the first line of Article II as well as all legislation that in some way limits Presidential power.
He may be right as a matter of politics, but this is utterly illegitimate as a legal analysis and the danger of it as established precedent should terrify all Americans who believe in the rule of law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
January 13, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to dnegri
While I am not a constitutional scholar (my degree emphasis was in communications), my reading of the Constituion leads me to disagree that this expansion of powers originated in the framers' Constitution.
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war.
That FDR had expanded presidential powers during WWII is also a trifle difficult to assess compared to any other president, before or after him. After all, he was the only president that was elected to four terms in office (though he died early in his 4th term). Since WWII took place mostly during his 3rd term, it's safe to say the he had already gathered up a fair bit of power during his first two terms. It was less a constitutional design than it was an effect of popular support (and grudging knuckling-under by Congress) during times of unprecedented crisis.
I personally believe that Naomi Klein and her book "Shock Doctrine" is closer to reality than anything that can be justified or rationalized by reinterpreting what the founders had in mind 234 years ago. The only thing that's clear from reading the writings of many of the founders is how diametrically opposed they were to allowing a president in this country to become some new king, dictator or other form of unfettered tyrant as Bush and Yoo's memos argue in favor of creating.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Msinformed
January 12, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to ericf
I totally agree with your opinion. Informed by reading, I suspect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
daveinnc
January 12, 2010 12:04 PM
Let us fervently hope that, under AG Holder's oversight, 'There Will Never Ever Be Another Yoo.'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Ben
January 12, 2010 12:08 PM
Yoo equates talking to Jon Stewart with torture. . . what a coward. John Yoo is a disgusting human being- I need to wash my ears and eyeballs because just listening and watching him on the screen makes me feel ethically, morally and intellectually dirty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 12, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to Just Ben
Yoo cannot make a legal argument that supports what he wanted done, so he told the Bush people to do it anyway and claim it is justified by being at war. It's a purely political argument for avoiding the Rule of Law.
Now he is trying to personally avoid blame for the torture he justified through a charm offensive. It just reminds me that Dick Cheney is alleged to be personally quite charming. Yoo doesn't seem to be very good at it, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Ben
January 12, 2010 12:13 PM
Saying: 'My country right or wrong' is like saying; 'My mother drunk or sober.'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
January 12, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to Just Ben
Or "My mother, saint or mass murderer."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kfreed
January 13, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to Just Ben
"My country right or wrong" doesn't mean I have to go along.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 12, 2010 12:18 PM
Stewart let him off the hook. I thought he was leading him into a trap of sorts and he just let him go. When Stewart made the point that America tried and convicted folks for torturing American servicemen during WWII, Yoo countered with "but they did much different stuff". Why didn't Jon point out that the Japanese were convicted of torture for waterboarding servicemen? I want an answer to that and he had Yoo right there and so close.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Msinformed
January 12, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
C'mon, it's not like Stewart is an prosecuting attorney! He is the best interviewer on TV today. Daily Show book schleps are not admissible in court, I bet
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 12, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
You don't think that somehow Yoo avoided the trap with his answer, do you? Stewart had better uses for his limited time than simply pounding that one nail into Yoo's sadly unintellectual coffin.
The entire interview was devastating to Yoo.
I wonder if any of his professors at Yale Law School think he should have graduated as lawyer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dnegri
January 12, 2010 12:37 PM
I'm less worried about someone like Yoo, than I am about the legion of Fundamentalists that the previous administration populated bureaus and agencies within the government. Why? Because Yoo's influence was limited to essentially one area whereas the Fundamentalists had their hands and Bibles in nearly everything.
And the tea party movement is just the latest incarnation of their presence on the scene.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 12, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to dnegri
I agree with you about the fundamentalist evangelicals.
As for the tea baggers, they seem to be more like the Norquist libertarians than the evangelicals. In fact, they appear to be Anarchists mixed with libertarians, angry at any symptom of organized government. They are right that the Republicans want to take them over and direct their anger and energy into getting Republicans elected. The strange Nashville convention may show the conflict there. Anti-government tea baggers when Republican free market exploiters attempt to organize and take them over?
Have the fundamentalists made any effort to join that fight? I haven't seen it. Where's James Dobson on the subject of the tea baggers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kim
January 12, 2010 12:45 PM
I was surprised that Stewart did not ask Yoo if he ever stopped to considered if the techniques employed may have been counterproductive - leading to false information. And I wonder why he did not ask Yoo to explain why there are so many experts in the field of interrogation who find that other methods of interrogation produce better results quicker than those methods that Yoo's memos led to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
January 12, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to Kim
Because Yoo has made it clear that he never even thought about that issue, or cared.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rmwarnick
January 12, 2010 12:52 PM
If I were John Yoo, I'd be living quietly in a country that has no extradition treaty with the U.S.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfields
January 12, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to rmwarnick
He already is. It's called Berkeley. ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Martskers
January 12, 2010 1:43 PM
The point is, why, oh why, did Jon Stewart give this war criminal a forum to peddle his sophistry, much less a forum to peddle his book?
John Yoo is NOT newsworthy anymore, until and unless he is arrested and frog-marched to jail (Guantanamo, anyone?).
Years ago, when Richard Nixon wrote a book, there was a campaign to boycott it which was called "Don't Buy Books By Crooks." The same can/should be said about Yoo and his book.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 12, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to Martskers
I am delighted to see this interview. It proved to me that Yoo is feeling the heat career-wise, or he would never have attempted this interview.
And he shouldn't have tried it. It gives more ammunition to those who want to disbar Yoo than anything else. The man simply can't make a legal case for his opinion.
Berkley is not firing him because of academic freedom, but if he is disbarred he ceases to be qualified as a law professor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Delores
January 12, 2010 2:19 PM
Yoo didn't speak w/ Bush.........did he speak w/ Cheney?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Msinformed
January 12, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to Delores
D'oh! THAT'S the question Jon Stewart missed!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
January 12, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Delores
By most accounts, rarely if ever. Most of Yoo's contact was with Cheney's pet attorney Doug Fieth and a handful of similarly idealogically driven lawyers (Gonzalez was in the loop, but not Ashcroft) who called themselves the War Council. Even Cheney can't definitively state what GWB was or wasn't told, just that he's "sure" it happened because of the nature of the issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alex3085
January 12, 2010 3:10 PM
I just dont understand why these ppl, yoo cheney bush are not in prison as they deserve to be. Crimes against humanity arrest their asses now
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
January 12, 2010 3:44 PM
Stewart; "Infamous"......exactly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
January 12, 2010 4:31 PM
torture is being a member of this site. i had to become a member, it was my penance for voting for obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lulu Strauss
January 12, 2010 4:39 PM
Seems like if, as Yoo claims, our constitutional system of law gave a President the right to go beyond the normal rule of law and do whatever he deemed necessary when the country is at war that the country would need be at war in a constitutionally prescribed way.
In our current situation, Bush, on his own [alleged] authority decided to declare war and send troops to wage war and to say anything he did was justified because *he* said we were at war and then...oh hell, you know the rest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
January 12, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to Lulu Strauss
I think what was Yoo is saying is this: it was not a bad/wrong decision to say that the president is legally authorized to torture because at times of war because the president has the power do whatever he thinks is necessary anyway. And the fact that the president did authorize torture to be used is solely the president's problem (not Yoo's problem).
And I think this is a very clever argument - it is not my (Yoo's) problem that Bush was a bad/stoopid president. The Office of the President needs these powers because they may be needed when a smart president is in office too.
In other words, Yoo is telling us: don't blame me for torture, blame Bush for signing the order authorizing it.
Am I the only one here to think that Yoo is just dissing Bush in a very clever way?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 13, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to tytester
It is, however, Yoo's problem that he was a bad/stupid advisor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
January 12, 2010 5:33 PM
I think Doonesbury should reprise his college segment where Mark and Mike skewered Kissinger. What I find most interesting is that Yoo never truly investigated just who was giving him his orders and never met personally with Bush and got first hand observation of the man's low candlepower. But then Sycophants never ask those questions anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cosmic Surfer
January 12, 2010 9:51 PM
The comment that "America had never really addressed the question of what is or isn't torture until after the attacks of September 11, 2001" is ludicrous,. A Texas sheriff was successfully prosecuted and convicted for....WATERBOARDING prisoners to obtain information...Reagan's DOJ in 1983 was the person to do it...
http://www.truthout.org/042709J
"Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies.:"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
And the US Army
On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
And of course the infamous trial of 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
So Mr YOO, what planet have you been on and just where did you get your degree?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nick Lento
January 13, 2010 1:02 AM
I once heard Yoo speak in a small group setting in NYC. He was as superficially affable and smart then as he was on the DS. Toward the end I asked a sharp and aggressive question along the lines of "Do you ever stop and think about the horrible and painful repercussions that your torture memos have had on the bodies and souls of thousands of people throughout the world, many of whom are held and tortured by regimes doing our bidding....that your words enable and encourage torture" And what I got from him was teh same kind of slickly superficial nonsense you saw in the videos, yet there was also an edge of sheer malevolent hatefulness just under the surface....he was much more in control on TV just now.
Yoo is a textbook example of the banality of evil. A true sociopath if ever there was one, no doubt Dick Cheney is a big fan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 9:14 AM
Chickens are now starting to roost on U.S. soil.
This mess was created by the Bush Administration and now we as Americans have to live with this reality.
SHAME ON WHO VOTED BUSH IN NOT ONCE BUT 2X'S
war criminals deserve a one way trip to GITMO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Astroboy
January 13, 2010 11:58 AM
Bush Murder Inc. needed to justify torture in order to use it.
They needed to use it to cultivate and gleen false confessions.
They needed "confessions" in order to justify invading Iraq.
It's just that simple, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with
"protecting the 'Homeland'".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
May 21, 2010 4:38 AM
I agree with you about the fundamentalist evangelicals.
As for the tea baggers, they seem to be more like the Norquist libertarians than the evangelicals. In fact, they appear to be Anarchists mixed with libertarians, angry at any symptom of organized government. They are right that the Republicans want to take them over and direct their anger and energy into getting Republicans elected. The strange Nashville convention may show the conflict there. Anti-government tea baggers when Republican free market exploiters attempt to organize and take them over?
Have the fundamentalists made any effort to join that fight? I haven't seen it. Where's James Dobson on the subject of the tea baggers?
cialis lovegra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?