Wednesday, May 06, 2009

BREAKING NEWS...Obama eats a cheeseburger!

I admit – despite my complete lack of respect for them – the national media really does provide entertainment. If nothing else, the way they stumble and swoon over Obama – like a bunch of training-bra, pimple-faced, preteen girls at a Jonas Brothers concert – is at least good for a daily laugh. Case in point, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC actually interrupted her afternoon news report to inform her viewers that President Obama had just eaten a cheeseburger.

Seriously. I can’t make this stuff up. What’s even more fascinating is the in-depth reporting on the burger. This burger is now officially the most investigated member of Obama’s entire administration. On the same day that Robert Gibbs tells the press corps that the photos from the infamous NYC Air Force One buzz-over have disappeared, the media manages to inform us all on intricate details regarding the cow flesh the President just consumed. It was a bacon cheddar cheese burger, cooked medium well, with Dijon mustard and a side of potato puffs. Joe “web number” Biden had a mushroom swiss burger. And not only that, but they paid for it themselves AND treated the White House press corps to burgers of their own. I’m actually kind of surprised MSNBC wasn’t reporting live via satellite from the burger joint itself, interviewing eye witnesses, re-enacting the whole scenario with slow-motion replays and computer graphic animation showing every dollop of Dijon dripping off of Obama’s burger, Biden reaching across the table to wipe a smudge of mustard off Barry’s face with a wink and a smile.

Oh, wait a minute, they actually DID interview an eye witness (again, I can’t possibly make this up). She was passing through picking up burgers for her family on the way home for work. Her comments were along the lines of how impressed she was with the President, and that this proves how in touch he is with the people, that he’s just a regular guy eating a burger. Remember, 300,000 Americans hold tax day protests coast-to-coast and the President has no clue why they’re so upset, yet his consumption of a cheeseburger with Dijon proves how “in touch” he is with the people? Where do they find these drones? And how did the reporter manage to not give her a shoulda-had-a-V8 bonk over the head with his microphone?

(and by the way, what kind of a man orders his burger medium well? My 4 year old daughter eats her burgers medium rare; and Dijon? On a cheeseburger? Just one of the folks, huh? Come on, Mr. President, if you want to look like an average Joe you can at least manage a little pink in your beef and some old-fashioned American mustard just one time)

At any rate, I don’t have a problem with Barry and Joe having a boy’s day out, knockin down a few burgers. I do question why it was necessary to bring the entire White House press corps. And I also wonder if Barry picked up the tab for his Secret Service detail. If it were me, I would have treated them and the limo drivers and let the press fend for themselves. Actually, Obama should have fed them scraps from his table. It would have been more appropriate to have the press sit on the floor around their table while Barry and Joe tossed them their burger grissle and the burnt ends of the potato puffs, chuckling as they scrambled and fought over every morsel. After all, if he can threaten to sic the press corps on his enemies, why not go all the way and treat them like dogs?

When a guy asks him, “What enchants you the most?”, who wouldn’t have loved to see Obama walk out to him, rub his head and say “Good boy! Goooooood boy! That’s my good boy! Him don’t ask me hard questions!”

Major Garrett better watch out. If he continues to ask Obama substantive questions he may get hit on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. And something tells me that if Chris Matthews had been at the burger joint he would be sitting next to Obama, staring at his burger with a long string of drool hanging out of his mouth.

Don’t feel sorry for them. They deserve it.

Happy Cinco de Seis!



Bravo Doctor! The fawning WH Press Corp has certainly earned your scathing, yet brash & humorous remarks. Well done.
Meanwhile, On May 4th, (and without the biggie frys & diet coke) Dan Friedman seriously reports on The Jerusalem Post Article:

"Thwarthing Iran's nuclear program is conditional on progress in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel."
Israel TV reports said Monday that Emanuel made the comments in a closed-door meeting the previous day with 300 AIPAC donors.

{Well, you little putz, tell your boss we'll have to do it without him. df}

Dan Friedman, NYC

Anonymous said...

I'm going to go ahead and say the media completely failed in this one. I mean really. Don't they have actual news to be reporting?

At least the president and VP have good taste in burgers though.

Nameless Cynic said...

So, what you're saying is, Obama can't win?

If he'd stayed in the White House, you'd say he was "out of touch." He went for a burger, and you still try to paint him as "elitist."

And the press follows the president when he goes out in public? Gee, I don't think that they've ever done that before, have they?

You paint the press as "fawning," too. Apparently without any memory of the way the press treated Bush.

John Washburn said...

The way the press treated Bush? Well, there were the daily front-page headlines essentially accusing him of war crimes. There were daily headlines on the body count with little mention of the progress being made in Iraq. There was the trumped-up “scandal” involving Valerie Plame. Oh yeah, and Dan Rather’s completely false accusation of draft-dodging. They didn’t stand for him in the briefing room, yet bounce to their feet the moment someone even whispers “Obama”. Had Bush ever spoken the words “happy cinco de quatro”, or said he had visited all 57 states, or called for asthmatics to have better access to their breathalyzer machines, they would have raked him over the coals for it.

But I’ll give credit where it’s due. At least Obama ordered his cheeseburger without using his teleprompter.

And you’re wrong about the out of touch thing. I couldn’t care less about his eating habits. I think he’s out of touch because he has absolutely no clue why millions of middle-class taxpayers are fed up with government waste. Where he chooses to dine doesn’t change that. His elitism is apparent in the way he smirks at the tax-day protestors, mocks middle America with his “cling to God and guns” comment in front of the high-society San Francisco crowd, consuming 9 thousand gallons of jet fuel on earth day, his wife’s $600 pair of shoes that she wore to a shelter, his refusal to let the taxpayers see the $800 billion stimulus bill before it was voted on, his refusal to release the Air Force One photos that cost us $320K and a brief moment of panic in the nation’s largest city, his multi-million dollar victory party in Grant Park that Chicago can’t find a way to pay for, his multi-million dollar inauguration that dwarfs any previous ceremony, his egotistical acceptance speech at the DNC convention (complete with Greek columns), his two memoirs (one for every year he spent as a US Senator before running for President), his Kobe beef dinners in the midst of a major recession, the autographed photos he donated to his daughter’s school fund-raiser, and the way he responds to Daniel Ortega’s criticism of US policy – “I’m glad he didn’t blame me”. He does a good job of painting himself as an elitist. I just point out the facts.

Apparently you missed the point of my post. This was a satirical jab at the media. It had nothing to do with Obama. You guys need to relax a bit. It's odd how people have such thin skin when it comes to this guy!

Auntyem said...


Wow, that was quite a check-list of Obama's piccadillos.

Lots of people also "had a thin skin" when it came to George W. People couln't say anything negative about him or they would be labled unpatriotic and America-haters.

Obama clearly is more sociable than Bush, who didn't mind the restrictiveness of having to limit his excursions out of the White House, was in bed by 9:00 pm every night, and enjoyed quiet times watching TV and eating pretzels. At least Obama can hold his Heineken (my favorite brand too). Just better flavor, no elitism there.

I have seen both Obama and his wife saying they like to "sneak" out of the White House to do "ordinary" things like visiting a local school when they don't have to, like going to a bar and grill for a simple meal instead of a gourmet meal prepared by the WH chef, and people are surprised that they still want to enjoy such simple things, thus the media coverage.

The Obamas are not used to staying home to eat, even if they have a gourmet chef at their beck and call (I notice that Michelle has gained weight since she can pick up the phone and order pie whenever she wants).

And what is so elite about dijon mustard? I won't have any other either because it has a better flavor. Why settle for something you find bland? I also like my beef done medium to medium well because I gag if I see any blood or veins in my food, and with Mad Cow disease, most restaurants cook beef longer anyway.

I think Obama finds certain people provincial because they don't expand their horizons, such as beyond "guns and religion", though in his position he shouldn't talk about it publicly.

When I go into someone's house and I see that they give their kids cheetos and processed meats and sugary drinks, and the TV is blaring with soap operas or wrestling, and there isn't a book or a magazine to be seen in the house, I comment to my husband about that lifestyle that seems so impoverished. But that has been my private opinion so far.

I had to laugh when I heard Obama mention that some people were "waving teabags around" and that he would rather hear from individuals directly. It made me think of the ladies in the Tea Party demonstrations that had little teabags hanging from the brims of their hats. How can you take them seriously? I wrote in another post to you that legislators respect letters, phone calls, e-mails from their constituents, that in our community that is how we get the politicians' attention.

The Tea Parties lost their focus, and were ridiculed because they were too forcefully promoted by Fox commentators who hosted them as "grass roots", had country western entertainment only, and next to no minorities involved.

Many of the Tea Party demonstrators are on entitlement programs like Social Secirity and Medicare and get that help from the taxpayers (yes, I know they paid into them too), so who's side are they on? Big business, big ag, big pharm that have not been giving the little guy a break, but thier CEOs take private jets to DC to beg for bailouts and then use the money to give themselves golden parachutes?

The media goes ga-ga over the Obamas I think because a large segment of the public needs a diversion from the seriousness of what is going on with the economy and the involvement in the Middle East. Obama needs the occasional diversion and camaraderie. Back during the Great Depression people flocked to movie houses to watch an adorable little moppet star and exotic lady and gentlemen stars. People swarmed to see them in person and even fainted in their presence. It was like a placebo for the bad times--ask your grand-parents about that time. People can't feel that way about an oilman's scion or any other candidates from the really elite class.

Port Orchard, WA


Good grief! John takes a satirical jab at Obama's Meek Press Corps, and it sparks all manner brainy drivel, like eleven paragraphs of idle chatter, from tea-bags on hats, to mustard and beer preference, to Michelle O's weight-gain, to CEO's jets and golden parachutes, and we see darn little relevance that old Dubya was in bed (with pretzels?) every night at nine o'clock!

Please Dr John, no more mention of cheeseburgers in this column; not ever, without throwing in an over-dose prescription for valium. Have some pity on us!


Nameless Cynic said...

Hmm... : The way the press treated Bush?

First of all, to take on one of your later points, I understood your point about the press. That's why I provided you four links showing the left side of the blogosphere complaining about the press fawning over Bush. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Well, there were the daily front-page headlines essentially accusing him of war crimes.You mean, like invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses? Imprisoning people and denying them POW status while simultaneously denying them the right of habeas corpus? (Including, incidentally, a large number of people proven innocent later.) Torturing prisoners? You mean those kind of war crimes?

There were daily headlines on the body countOh, you mean like this one? You know, funny thing. Almost 4300 dead, but how many Iraqis died in the process? Well, that's difficult to tell, actually - one estimate says 110,600, but acknowledges that the actual number might be 10-20% higher "because of thousands who are still missing and civilians who were buried in the chaos of war without official records."

Must kind of suck to live in Iraq, huh?

...with little mention of the progress being made in Iraq.Oh, absolutely right. All kinds of progress. Of course, they still haven't managed to rebuild the infrastructure we blew up, but other than that, it must just be a wonderful place to live.

(You'll excuse me if I just skip Valerie Plame. I'll say she was a covert operative, you'll say she couldn't have been because she drove to work or some crap, and we'll just go around and around on it. (Why was it that Scooter Libby was convicted, again, though?)

Oh yeah, and Dan Rather’s completely false accusation of draft-dodging.Actually, you should probably look into that one a little harder. Nobody ever proved that Dan Rather was wrong. It's possible (still questionable) that the specific documents were forgeries. But that's never been proven. And the information in them still holds up.

(Yeah, I've seen all the conspiracy theorists talking about the proportional spacing and crap. Let's talk about the fact that Bush can't document any of his time the National Guard. Weird, isn't it? The military has very clear notes of every day of my 21 years, but they have a pilot who's records just went missing one day?)

They didn’t stand for him in the briefing room, yet bounce to their feet the moment someone even whispers “Obama”.Gee, I don't know. Maybe, instead of relying on a slanted Youtube video spliced together by a guy with an agenda, should you ask a member of the press corps?

...the way he smirks at the tax-day protestors

Uh, that wasn't just Obama. We all smirked at the teabaggers. I mean, if government waste was the issue, where were they last year? I mean, by Tax Day 2008, $3 trillion had been poured down the two ratholes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, Bush never put those numbers into his budget - he paid for them off the books; are you saying the teabaggers are clueless enough not to have fallen for that?

And while there was a little talk about "government waste," wasn't TEA supposed to stand for "Taxed Enough Already"? On signs carried by people whose taxes were lower under Obama? (Oh, and weirdly enough, usually in parks and on streets paid for with tax dollars...)

mocks middle America with his “cling to God and guns” No, actually, he was talking about lower class America. But haven't gun sales gone up since the depression started? Seems like they're clinging to something there...

Damn, speaking of thin skins, look at that list you put together. I mean, I could go point-by-point on there (you know, like the inauguration: you're comparing apples to apples + associated costs - factor it all in, things balance out.)

But that isn't your point, is it? (Well, except for that first 500 or so words of your reponse, anyway.) Your point (after all that) is "...the point of my post.... was a satirical jab at the media. It had nothing to do with Obama."

My response was (give or take a sentence fragment) three short paragraphs. The first was about your viewpoint, and the last two were about the press.

So who is it with a thin skin again? I'm just curious...

John Washburn said...


My reference to Dijon and medium well was not an “elitist” thing as much as it was a “wimpy” thing. The point being my 4 year old eats a more manly burger. But even at that, it was a harmless jab, a joke. I know I usually post on serious things, but occasionally I like to have some fun with people who need a prod every now and then. I don’t care how the President eats his burger. I hope he enjoyed it. My thing was that the press has become ridiculous in their over-anxious infatuation with this guy. Breaking into a news cast to tell viewers that Obama was eating a cheeseburger? Good grief.

Anyway, it was a satirical post. I was making fun of the press and, yes, they deserve it. Personally, I thought it was funny and I certainly didn’t expect it to generate such serious debate. Come on guys, let’s all have a laugh every once in a while!

And Obama hardly said he would rather hear from individuals directly. He said he would engage in serious conversation regarding health care...which has absolutely nothing to do with the protests, further demonstrating his lack of insight. And he HAS heard from individuals directly. The White House and the Hill have been flooded with emails, calls and letters ever since this bailout nonsense began. They've simply chosen to ignore it.

John Washburn said...

“Nobody ever proved that Dan Rather was wrong”

I love it whenever I’m debating someone on the Left because inevitably there will be a slip that reveals their true agenda. This is an example. So when someone levies a major charge, we should take it seriously until that person’s accusation is proven wrong? Wow. How soviet can we possibly get here?

As for your other talking points, I’ll leave them alone. Not because I don’t have an argument, but because I’ve had this discussion dozens and dozens of times and I’m sure you have as well. I know exactly how it’s going to go because I know all of your answers. I’ve heard them many, many times. It basically comes down to one thing, you dislike Bush and love Obama. Which is curious given the fact that Obama is essentially continuing Bush’s strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan and has doubled down on Bush’s economic policy.

As for the Tea Parties, I don’t expect the Left to take them seriously. They have a paternalistic mindset that basically says “we know what’s best for you”. Eventually, they will have to pay attention to us because the 2010 elections aren’t far. Arlen Specter has become the first politician to learn this lesson and now he’s your problem.

And, yes, we did protest before Obama. The moment Bush announced his insane bailout scheme, Congress was flooded with letters, phone calls and emails speaking out against it. MANY voters abandoned McCain the moment he signed on to it, which was a major factor in losing the election. The GOP was trounced in ’06 and ’08 because of their reckless spending habits. Simply put, the conservative, small-government base bailed on a phony party. We finally took to the streets because 1) it was obvious that no one in Congress was listening to our emails, phone calls and letters; 2) because April 15 is a symbolic day; and 3) it was obvious that Obama had NO intention to change course on Bush’s high-spending policies. You say Fox promoted it, I say they COVERED it. Hannity did promote them on his show but he was a late arrival. This movement began long before he started promoting it.

You can try to paint the Tea Parties as a partisan thing all you want. But the people who are part of this grassroots movement transcend party lines. There are conservatives, democrats, moderates and independents. Bottom line, we’re fed up with ALL politicians. We don’t mind paying taxes, but we demand that our government be responsible with the money they take in. We demand accountability when it fails in that area. We demand transparency with government spending. And we demand that our children have a fair shot at the pursuit of happiness. I devoted an entire post to explaining our position. It has nothing to do with the GOP or Fox News. We don’t give a damn what those organizations say or do, no more than what CNN, MSNBC or the New York Times say.

And I think you’ll find that I am hardly thin-skinned. My response simply pointed out – with only a few of the many examples – what makes Obama an elitist, and it has nothing to do with my opinion or any subtle reference you might misinterpret. Those are things that actually occurred. Believe me, I’ve been called every name in the book – most recently “teabagger”. I actually enjoy it because once a debate devolves into name-calling it usually means that somewhere along the way I made a point that can’t be argued. The name-calling is just a reflection of the frustration that such a point generates.

And when you refer to us as “teabaggers” you damage your own credibility. That’s a bit juvenile don’t you think? It’s hard for me to respect someone’s opinion when they reinforce their arguments with pornographic name-calling. If that’s the kind of thing you like to do then your opinions will be more welcome on the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. This site is open for people who wish to engage in respectful, healthy debate


A Truism: Without some pain, there is no gain.

For a bundle of reasons this nation
has "snookered itself" into a very dangerous imbalance in congressional seats, and the GOP &
An Unstoppable Majority of Loyalist Obama-Maniacs share in the creation of that bewildering dilemma.

In the process, we've emotionally (hopefully it's only temporary) dealt ourselves a One-Party System without a veto-power, with Loony-tune Al Franken & "Benedict" Arlen Spector!
Now, the responsible voters of every political persuasion must recognize that fact, and wait patiently for November 2010, to correct the clear imbalance.

By the end of 2010, the outrageously unfunny "tax & spend" policies will impose a Devastating Inflation of the Current Dollar-value that will be obvious...even to the left & right-wing extremists; so relax folks.

We'll get back to the Two-Party System; just keep the faith with a bold "Sempre Fi" ! reb

Nameless Cynic said...

So when someone levies a major charge, we should take it seriously until that person’s accusation is proven wrong? Wow. How soviet can we possibly get here?Absolutely fascinating. But you had nothing to say to your commenters when they started flailing away at the specious "Obama birth certificate" non-issue? I love it whenever I’m debating someone on the Right because inevitably there will be a slip that reveals their true agenda.

You can try to paint the Tea Parties as a partisan thing all you want.You're saying it wasn't? This wasn't a grassroots movement, it was straight-up astroturf. If it hadn't been strongly promoted (and apparently sponsored) by Fox News, it wouldn't have gotten anything resembling the traction it did.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, where were you on Tax Day 2008? For that matter, why didn't your outrage bubble over when George W. Bush, by himself, managed to mortgage the United States, borrowing more money from other countries than every other president combined.

Your timing is points steadily toward the GOP and their ilk. How is it that you managed to drift cheerfully through eight years of George Bush spending money like the drunken fratboy he's always been? And why have you suddenly become mobilized because the American people elect a charismatic leader who pays attention to economists and other experts, and pitches in to prevent the country from sinking under the weight of Republican stupidity and mismanagement?

when you refer to us as “teabaggers” you damage your own credibility. I have credibility? Cool. Not, of course, that you haven't already denigrated me, and therefore my arguments, as leftist, potentially soviet, and (by implication) a blind lover of all things Obama.

That’s a bit juvenile don’t you think?Hey, I'm not the one who went to the tax day rallies with teabags stapled to my hat, and hung around with people holding up blatantly racist signs ("White Slavery - Obama's Solution" was one of many examples I saw around here).

You decided to protest waste by... wasting tea? Talk to me about juvenile acts.

Auntyem said...

John, you said, "And Obama hardly said he would rather hear from individuals directly. He said he would engage in serious conversation regarding health care...which has absolutely nothing to do with the protests, further demonstrating his lack of insight. And he HAS heard from individuals directly. The White House and the Hill have been flooded with emails, calls and letters ever since this bailout nonsense began. They've simply chosen to ignore it".

Yes, Obama did say he would rather talk to people right after he mentioned that people were "waving teabags" around. Then he segued into what he was going to say about health care.

Also, e-mails, letters, and phone calls to the Hill almost stopped the passing of the bailouts. The Republicans all voted no, and even several moderate Democrats, who all said their constituents had let them know they were against bailouts, and that their re-elections would be jeopardized if they voted for it.

How did they hear from their constituents? By their offices at the local level and at the Hill being inundated with communications of all kinds. This was all before the TEA parties. What needed to have been done was to keep up the pressure; the TEA parties were a little too late.

I never referred to you by that "porno" name; I said "TEA party demonstrators". In fact I let you know in another post how naive I was to not know that term had a double entendre. And I don't want to go to, nor have I ever wanted to go to Huff Post (I can't stand the way that lady talks, like Zsa Zsa) and the Daily Kos sounds communist; I don't like left-wing and skin-head blogs that deteriorate into vulgar name-calling, just jerks trying to match dimwits with each other. I have never done that. I don't know who you are talking about, and I think one of your other posters didn't realize the double meaning of the word you take exception to, and I don't see that he even used the word in his posts.

Port Orchard, WA

John Washburn said...

Em, those comments were directed to another person. You have always been respectful of others on this site and I appreciate that, along with the discourse.

John Washburn said...

Mr. Cynic, if you read any of my other posts you would see that I hardly drifted cheerfully through 8years of Bush's economic policy. In fact, I was quite critical of it. We have opposed big spending from the beginning, the political affiliation of the spenders matter little to us. TARP and the bailouts were the final straw. TARP was Bush's idea, supported by McCain and Obama, and we oppose it. How is that partisan?

I choose to ignore baseless accusations which is why I don't address them when they come up. Claiming Obama is not native born is a baseless accusation that I don't think warrants a response. If someone provided actual proof of that then perhaps I would engage. But I can't let someone get away with a statement like yours - that Rather should be taken more seriously because nobody ever proved he was wrong.

By that logic we should also take the Obama-isn't-native-born argument seriously because it has yet to be proven wrong.

I did not call you soviet, I said such a position is soviet. The burden of proof rests upon the accuser.

Anonymous said...

reb sez,

The 1000+ page Stimulus Bill was presented to, and approved by the majority-party UNREAD, and a pitifully few conservatives and independents voiced their objections to the fast, under-handed magician's schuffle.

Pure ledgerdemaine!

Obama has succeeded in spending more of the taxpayers money in his first 100 days, than Dubya spent in 8 years, with two wars in progress.

Now That's G. Soros-Progressive! reb

Nameless Cynic said...

So, just curious: were you as irritated by the press corps when they were Bush's lapdogs as you seem to be now? I'm not seeing any evidence that you were.

Admittedly, your archives only go back to 2006, and by that time, almost everybody but Fox News and WorldNetDaily had figured out that torture is bad, habeas corpus is good, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and there weren't any of the WMD's in Iraq that the White House claimed there were. But did it annoy you back when the new-president smell wasn't off GWB?

John Washburn said...

Cynic, that last question is difficult to answer because by the time the "new president" smell had worn off of Bush we had endured the worst attack in US history. So, perhaps the press was kinder and gentler to Bush at that time (although I don't recall them being as kind as they are to Obama) because the nation as a whole rallied together to face the threat.

But once the memories of 9/11 became more distant the press turned on him quick. Surely you don't believe the national media is giving equal treatment to Bush and Obama. Surely you can see the obvious contrast.

And to quickly summarize, torture is bad but water boarding is not torture. Habeas Corpus is good but the President has the authority to suspend it in times of crisis (or do you disagree with Lincoln's decision to do so?), to this day I have yet to meet someone who believes or ever believed that Iraq was involved with 9/11; and the WMD's were never found in Iraq. That's much different than saying they never existed. If they never existed then how did Iraq use them on Iran and on the Kurds?

And if they were destroyed prior to our arrival, then why didn't the UN inspectors find evidence confirming that? Why didn't the troops find such evidence? Why didn't Hussein fess up and allow the inspectors in to show us that he had disarmed? Or should we believe that such a narcissistic dictator would be willing to lose his power just to spite the UN and the US?

At any rate, even if the WMDs NEVER existed you can't argue that ousting Hussein was a bad thing, that giving 35 million Muslims a chance at liberty was bad, that giving democracy at least a chance to take root in a chaotic part of the world was bad. Yes, mistakes were made, but overall the US and our allies did a good thing in Iraq.


What's that? Bush Press Corps were "lap-dogs"?

I seem to recall a Scowling Old Bull-dog at Front-Row Center...

Helen Thomas was no cute little shivering Lap-dog! reb

Nameless Cynic said...

Why is it that the only people who think waterboarding isn't torture are the ones who've never been through it? Trust me, drowning, even simulated drowning, isn't something you want to do.

But here. Remember former wrestler, former Navy SEAL and former governor Jesse "the Body" Ventura? Did you see any of his comments on the subject?

You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney, and one hour, and I'll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders.And that from a man who publically wore feathers and a pink tux.

"And if they were destroyed prior to our arrival, then why didn't the UN inspectors find evidence confirming that?"

And if there were no unicorns, why didn't they find evidence to prove that? Would you care to take a wild guess why they found no evidence of WMD's?

Because there were no WMD's.

Had there been some? Well, yes. Actually, there were. Almost two decades earlier. And we should know, because we sold them to him. Back when Iran was our "sworn enemy" and Iraq was our great good friend (you know, during this period). That's one of the reasons that BushCo was so sure that they'd find something.

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips. Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum and now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and energy company while Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc."

John Washburn said...

I haven't been waterboarded myself but I have spoken to people who have since we do this to our own special forces units as part of their training. My father was one of them.

They have told me, without exception, that they don't consider it torture - what they would define as something that inflicted physical pain. My dad said it was a way to get information through fear and the training involved overcoming that fear.

And I'm not sure what you're point is about Iraq. Yes, we helped them out some time ago. As we did for Afghanistan. DOes that exempt them from consequences if they eventually become a threat to our national security, or behave in a manner that is not conducive to world peace?

If that's the case then we owe an apology to Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran. And that whole Revolutionary War thing was obviously wrong given our support of the British during the prior French-Indian War.