GOP Trap: Clarifying Acceptable Modes of Torture

As BushCo spins Common Article III and pundits and others debate "what if" scenarios of US paramilitary troops being captured in Iran, I am left with a cold feeling that we are being lead into an ambush.

President Bush today insisted that all he wants to do is "clarify" Common Article III of the Geneva Convention.  Bush insisted vehemently that it was too "vague".  He insisted that "yound CIA" officers won't break the law and they need to know exactly what they cannot do.  Re-read the last sentence because it is very important, nay critical to this debate.  

Common Article III says the following:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Now I am not sure why this section needs "clarification" or "definition" in Bush's mind, but let's just say for the sake of argument we were tasked to define what is considered torture and what is considered "not so bad".

What would you do first?  We would have to start a list of forms of torture, "almost toture", "sorta torture", and "icky things" that might be considered torture.  Then in hopes that we had thought of every single possible form of torture ever devised we would set to allocating them to the categories.  In Bush's world I suspect that a number of torture techniques would fall into "icky things" we believe aren't so bad like water boarding.  Those "icky things" and lite versions of "sorta torture" and "almost torture" would make up our list of acceptable forms of torture, but we would make sure to call them "procedures" as Bush so carefully did last week.

Next we would take the rest of our list that fell into "torture" and we would put them on the list of things we are absolutely forbidden to do.  Further, we would name, define and describe the torture techniques on this list down to the tinest detail.  This list would be very specific.  This list of torture techniques would be difficult for people like me because it would be so graphic that it would likely feel like I was experiencing the torture myself just by reading it.  Many Americans would review this list and feel "good" that we were not doing these horrifying things and that George Bush does afterall know the difference between right and wrong.

My other list of "not really torture" techniques that would be allowed would not be so graphic, defined or specific.  It would feel reasonable if you read it and in your head you believed the President's rhetoric - lies - about how effective these "procedures" had already been in saving your life.  

Success!

We have now denifined and clarified Common Article III.  We make a law complete with our specifics, clarifications and graphic descriptions of those "procedures" that are forbidden - torture has been outlawed.

Fast forward, three months after we have passed our "Anti-Torture Act".  We find out that several prisoners have been subjected to one of the forms on the list that is forbidden.  We are outraged and we think it is terrible.  BUT President Bush and his co-horts say "No!  It isn't so.  This particular "procedure" is not on the list."  We say, "But the third prohibited technique on the list Hanging a Prisoner Upside Down by the Ankles is indeed on the list!"  BushCo says, "Read the fine print.  This prisoner was hung upside down using fish hooks through his toes.  We stand by our procedure."

That is why they are trying to narrowly define torture and that is why Common Article III does not attempt to define it.

That is the trap we face.

Forget about whether or not an American Paramilitary Soldier might get caught in Iran because what they are really trying to do here requires that you think of every possible form and combination of torture that ever could be inflicted upon a prisoner - if we forget anything - they will take advantage of the fact that there are no details - no "clarification".

Finally, this Republican split is a charade.  It is meant to make Americans think that Republicans in Congress can act independently.  They are acting in concert to protect the President's Administration from being prosecuted for war crimes and trying to score some political points in the process.

For nearly 50 years, the Geneva Conventions have been very clear to every single President, Judiciary and Congress since they were adopted.  I would say BushCo's cabal are the ones who are confused if I didn't know they were just trying to destroy them and the United States of America in the process.

What kind of person could make a complete list of torture techniques anyway?

•  Tip jar.

  Sigh.

  by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 02:59:21 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    What the Bushists don't want is for anyone to actually look at the Article.

    Just accept, they say, that it is "vague."

    Oh, and that our "operatives" never, ever would break a law.

    by AaronBa on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:02:16 PM PDT

    •  Yes and if McCain, Warner and Graham really

      felt that torture was wrong they would point out that it is not vague, but they are not sincere.  They are acting in a political play for the benefit of the campaign.

      by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:08:11 PM PDT

      •  I Would Hate to Think That You Are Right

        Actually, I do think you are right--and I hate it.

        by AaronBa on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:12:20 PM PDT

        •  I wouldn't make the statement so confidently

          if we hadn't gone through the Bush / McCain "showdown on torture" months ago and seen Bush insert his "signing statement" without challenge from McCain or any of these other Senators or Congressmen.  Basically, we have seen this movie plot before.

          by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:14:50 PM PDT

      •  I now think you are right.

        This is smoke and mirrors.

        On the TORTURE issue no less.

        Look at what is in the McCain/Graham bill and you will see that it is still bad.  Bush is taking the extreme position so that McCain/Graham looks reasonable.  This way the GOP controls the debate and the media.

        We need to oppose McCain/Graham.  In particular, there should be access to the courts for those who have been tortured, and there should be no revisions of the War Crimes Act of 1996 or any other vitiation of liability for the torturers...and that includes the torturer-in-chief Bush.

        by maxschell on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:43:32 PM PDT

•  hear hear!

  by blacklib on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:02:09 PM PDT

•  I Diaried earlier today

  With a slightly different viewpoint, and a couple of good comments

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  Important topic, we need to keep our eye one this...

  by blindcynic on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:25:36 PM PDT

  •  I am glad you linked your diary. I had not

    seen it.  I also recommended it.  Thanks.

    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:04:25 PM PDT

    •  I'm new at this

      So I didn't think to add the article III part 'till later and put it in quotes ... important topic - strange to see the R's arguing about how much to torture....

      by blindcynic on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:07:21 PM PDT

      •  It is always strange to watch deranged people.

        n/t

        by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:09:03 PM PDT

•  Tie it to IRAQ or change the subject

  Rove is simply running a familiar strategy. dems could get a lot of milage out of simply pointing this out because people are familiar with this strategy and tired of it. So here's how to link detention to Bush's weaknesw- Iraq

  We got to Iraq because Bush forced a vote on invading Iraq in Oct 2002, right before the midterm elections. It passed without hearings and poof we were in Iraq. Once again, Bush is exploiting 9-11 for an election year, and this politicized pre-election vote on "terror" is exactly how we into Iraq in 2002. There bills are highly controversioal and there should be hearings after the elections.

  Or do something smarter and quit letting the GOP control the agends. Start talking about Social Security - this should be enough to get a landslide for the Dems. But they keep responding to the GOP and letting them set the pace, time, and place. change the subject! "Today we aren't talking about 'torture', instead we're here to outline our plan to save social security..."

  by bernardpliers on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:25:39 PM PDT

  •  I agree with you, but I am worried that

    we might be at a critical point on this issue where not only the Democrats might agree to "define and clarify" torture, but also the American people would be open to such a despicable activity.

    I'd like to see the Dems say that there is no "approved list" for a good reason and by the way the GOP intend to kill Social Security - let's talk about that instead...

    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:29:15 PM PDT

    •  The clock is on the field

      The key to W's strategy is to rush this through without hearings.

      Remeber hearings? This is where Congress brings in witnesses and experts, and then something happens. it's lost in the sands of history, maybe the Smithsonian has a desription

      by bernardpliers on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:39:15 PM PDT

  •  At the risk of getting flamed,

    tieing this to Iraq alone could backfire.

    A lot of people are still very angry over 9-11 and still believe that Iraq was a party to it. As I talk to the neighbors at my little red-country cottage, I am always surprised at how quickly they have supported the mistreatment of prisoners in the name of national security. It's sort of a "make them pay for their actions" attitude because "these guys want to destroy our freedom and dignity. So why should we protect theirs?"

    These neighbors have no fear that we are devolving into the very same sort of enemy that they revile.

    I think we need to remind people why the Conventions were established in the first place in 1949. We need to paint vivid pictures of Bataan, of forced marches that our troops endured. We need to talk about how POWs in Nam were treated.

    Those conventions were established and upheld not only because it was the ethical, moral thing to do; they were established to offer some nominal form of protection to our own soldiers who so valiantly serve.

    We have sent our troops into this war without the protection of body armor, without the protection of proper training, without medical and financial protection for their sacrifices. No we won't even offer them the protections of the Geneva Convention that came about because of their parents and grandparents sacrifices???

    We need to say, in loud and clear terms:

    We will not become the enemy of our own soldiers.

    by MrSandman on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:18:54 PM PDT

    •  I wouldn't flame you - I totally agree.

      I was exploring the trap of writing a law that lists what is acceptable and what is not.  The issue of handling the public perception is a different conversation that I totally think we need to think about.  Don Imus interrupted David Gregory talking about this re-write of Geneva this morning irrationally saying, "They cut people's heads off!"

      I wondered when the dark day would come when I would have to respond to him by saying, "So do we."

      by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:28:29 PM PDT

      •  The pushback to that is...

        "What the fuck? You get your definition of right and wrong from scumbag terrorist? We're "good" just because we're not as bad as Osama? Fuck you! Americans don't torture!"

        Um, that... and hope Imus' staff has the 10-second delay on... 'cause, you know, waterboarding is fine, but saying "fuck" in a grown-up discussion is beyond the pale.

        What planet is this, again?

        by kingubu on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:55:17 PM PDT

      •  Nah. We just rape civilian children,

        shoot their families and then torch their houses to destroy the evidence.

        At least the US would have the decency to torture prisoners before we cut their heads off and, of course, to torch the video cameras as well so those christian kids at home wouldn't be affronted by the fact-based reality of Bush's holy war.

        I'm not sure the perceptions are so different between politicians and the public or that it is a different conversation. Why else would you worry that dems might agree to "define and clarify" what torture is acceptable?

        Great diary, BTW.

        by MrSandman on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:05:56 PM PDT

        •  I analyzed that sentence for a few hours after he

          said it - he repeated it several times.  The emphasis was on "they" - the implication is that they don't get to have the same rules as "we".  I mean really, it is amazing to me how few people empathize with anyone we attack.  We are attacked on one morning in September, lose 3,000 people and a handful of buildings and our whole world crumbles.  The Iraqis lose their entire way of life, about 100,000 people are dead, and they have lived with these horrors and insecurity for more than three years and yet "they" are way worse than "we" are.  In short, we are talking big time major double standard.  It is sickening really.

          by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:16:43 PM PDT

•  You said it all...

  For nearly 50 years, the Geneva Conventions have been very clear to every single President, Judiciary and Congress since they were adopted.  

  The evil mind is incredibly inventive which can always work around the definition of torture. If electro shock is torture, well maybe it does not say lazer or microwave shock or fill in the blank is illegal. Vague is a good workable way to handle this.

  The Constitution is vague - there are no references to phone taps or electro shock torture because they had not yet been invented. Yet we inherently know that invasion of privacy and cruel and unusual punishment are illegal, and that perpetrators of either should be punished. The Geneva Conventions can remain vague and continue working, with or without Bush's comprehension. If he can't handle the job, we should get someone who can understand, or STOP THE PROGRAM.

  Side note: Bush says if he does not get clarification from Congress,then his program will not go forward. Good. Don't give him clarification and apparently the good workers in the program will refuse to do the work for fear of being accused of war crimes. Good. If one believes what Bush says.

  by sailmaker on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:41:18 PM PDT

  •  It's not electro shock

    it's electro THERAPY.

    Just trying to help the imprisoned "terrorists" work through their issues.

    "The US is good ZZAAAAP, the US is great ZZAAAAP, let us thank them for our cake ZZZZAAAAAAAAPPPP, now, when and where will the Flying Spaghetti Monster attack our country?  Oh?! On June 7th 1936?  At Whacko, New Deli?  OK, you've done your bit, thanks you can go now, ZZZZAAAAAPPPPPP, just kidding.

    by rage on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:57:49 PM PDT

•  It's far more simple than parsing techniques.

  The captors are not supposed to do anything to the captives.  The end.

  You put the prisoners in a brig/stockade/jail of some kind, feed them, treat their infirmities & leave them the hell alone.   If a prisoner violates good order & discipline it is permissable punish the troublemaker in forms similar to those used for the captor's own troops.  The end.

  When our GIs are captured & jailed, they have a very small list of things they can do at an interrogation.  Name, rank & branch of service, serial number, date of birth.  The end.

  Is this, then, the point at which Bu$hInc begins torturing the prisoners--immediately after date of birth statement?

  The captors are not supposed to do anything except feed, clothe, shelter & doctor.  All else is a red herring flopping around on the table.  This entire discussion is insane & proves how utterly delusional Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc. actually are.  They're fucking NUTZ.

  by whl on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:41:20 PM PDT

  •  Of course, but a lot of people are

    buying into the idea that it is reasonable to make a list of dos and don'ts and that isn't reasonable at all - it is indeed insane.

    Frankly, it creeps me out - like Jeffery Dahmer kind of creeps - to even think about what kind of person would be enlisted to compile an encyclopedia of torture techniques.

    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:47:15 PM PDT

    •  It's not about documenting all torture techniques

      that we eschew. That would be an endless list of unspeakable horrors.

      I think it's about writing the manual that describes acceptable techniques, and Kerry has stated unequivocally that he and the Senate are willing to write it if the Administration isn't.

      MATTHEWS:  What do you think is appropriate torture?

      KERRY:  There is no appropriate torture, period.  

      MATTHEWS:  What is appropriate ...

      (CROSSTALK)

      KERRY:  And we‘ve been arguing that for a long time.  They have been arguing to be allowed to torture.  This is the first administration in American history the vice president of the United States says we should be allowed to torture.  They argued for torture, for a loophole that allowed them to do it.  Now, the president stands up and says the United States doesn‘t torture.

      Well, I think that they have ignored the fact that the Geneva Conventions were not in place because we are nice.  They weren‘t put in place to be soft.  They were put in place to support and defend the interests of our troops in the battlefield, so that if young Americans are captured, we know that we‘ve done the best to be able to have them treated properly.

      MATTHEWS:  The president—maybe it‘s a matter of wording.  The president said he‘s using tough interrogation techniques?  How do you read that?

      KERRY:  Those are legitimate, if they‘re not torture.  I mean, there are techniques which are legitimate under military practices.  I mean, it‘s not a—you know, it‘s not a—I mean, this is not softball.

      MATTHEWS:  Right.

      KERRY:  It‘s war, it‘s tough, and the fact is that there are tough situations.

      MATTHEWS:  Is waterboarding in or out, as you see it?

      KERRY:  But there are things that are short of torture.

      MATTHEWS:  How about waterboarding?  You make a guy think he‘s drowning?

      KERRY:  If we start going down a whole series of ...

      MATTHEWS:  But isn‘t that what he‘s asked to do in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, to basically legislate what‘s in and what‘s out in terms of how we treat prisoners in terms of interrogation?

      KERRY:  Well, if they want us to do every single particular practice, we can do that.  We can write the manual for them we‘re happy to do it.  And it shows, again, the ineffectiveness of this administration that they‘re unwilling to do that in keeping with American values.  I‘m happy to do it.

      The bottom line is that we need to prosecute these people, we need to bring them to justice, we need to be tough in the world.  I think what‘s happened is this administration has lost that toughness, in a real sense, because they‘re more rhetorical than they are substance in their ability to be able to do things.

      Video here.

      by bumblebums on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:55:10 PM PDT

      •  And Kerry has been caught in lots of these

        GOP traps.  That rhetorical play is exactly where they want Kerry to go.  The list / manual is the trap.  Codifying it is the trap.  Doesn't anyone get that they went through exactly this discussion when they wrote the Geneva Conventions in the first place?  

        by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:58:58 PM PDT

        •  So you think it's improper to have a manual

          that specifies appropriate interrogation procedure? That describing what's allowable somehow turns us into Jeffrey Dahmer? Do you think we shouldn't be interrogating anyone? I'm confused.

          Codifying it is the trap.

          Codifying what?

          Kerry's not talking about codifying a vast compendium of horrifying torture techniques that we repudiate and reject. He's talking about setting down guidelines for conducting interrogations that don't violate our values.

          by bumblebums on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:18:36 PM PDT

          •  Writing a law describing unacceptable tortures

            "codifies" the procedures and then it becomes a game of omission. If it doesn't appear on the list of unacceptable activities, it leaves the door open for torture that is not on the list.  Lindsey Graham is a very clever lawyer in this regard.  Instead of sticking with broad language that essentially says that no torture is acceptable, they are trying to create an opening.

            outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

            This can mean different things to different peoples and therefore protects the most people possible.  For instance, it is no hardship for me if someone sees my legs.  In other cultures, women whose legs are exposed in front of men feel that they have been violated.  Would it occur to you to include not exposing women's legs if that would be perceived to be an outrage upon personal dignity?

            Kerry was right in his first statement - no torture period.  

            by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:33:16 PM PDT

    •  Creepy like Karl Rove.

      I swear that guy is the reincarnated spirit of a Salem witch trial judge.  So sanctimonious.  So insincere.  So cynical.  And he would think it great fun to list torture techniques, don't you think?  There's something seriously twisted about that little slug.

      by sherlyle on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:33:01 PM PDT

•  Thanks, and a Point

  Call me crazy, but I actually believe the McCain, Warner, and Graham, as well as Colin Powell, are serious in standing up.  On the other hand, Tony Snow did actually say yesterday that he thinks Colin Powell is confused in his criticism of the president's ridiculous "plan".

  by larocn on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:45:47 PM PDT

  •  I understand your reservations on my

    assertion about the ploy, but I'll just give you three things to chew on:  

    1. Literally minutes after the Senators went with their own plan yesterday the media was screaming "Presidential Defeat!" - the Dem rapid response machine isn't that fast and Rove would have the media's heads if they said that without it being blessed by the GOP spin machine.

    2. Ed Gillespie inspired me to finally write this diary.  Tonight he was on Hardball and he explained that this Republican Congress often works very independently from the President.  He said with some glee that we were witnessing the democratic process.

    3. President Bush would no sooner go to Capitol Hill to be publically humiliated by his own party (without prior notice / planning it) than he would reverse his position on stem cells.  No President does that unless they believe there is a public relations advantage.

    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:54:13 PM PDT

•  Excellent diary.

  Reco'd.

  See also my comment above.  I think this huge "GOP fracture" is fabricated for full smoke and mirrors effect.  It gives the appearance of a big battle, and exhausts the media and the public.

  We have to oppose McCain/Graham in addition to Bush's insanity.  Only problem is, when we do, the united Rethugs will say we are just being obstructionist.

  We should lay out our opposition very soon, and I hope that Reid et al.  are preparing to do just that.

  by maxschell on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:46:16 PM PDT

•  Is there a law on the books

  that specifically keeps me from, i dunno, capturing one of Bush's relatives, securing them with chenile yarn, and stuffing broccoli in their throat until they suffocate? Notice the question mark, I'm just asking. And I mean specifically. Broccoli, chenile yarn, Bush relatives--the whole nine yards.

  The fact is, the way the law is written is specific enough.  Bush will do whatever he wants until Dems can take over and begin investigations.

  Excuse me, I've got to go. Billy is trying to say something and I can't understand him. "More broccoli, Billy?"

  by The Gryffin on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:49:55 PM PDT

•  Do they want a list?

  I thought Bush wanted secret alternate interrogation methods.  I think the moving the goal line technique would work better.  When they say things like we aren’t grinding bones, ask is that because you filet first?  Make them spell out the alternative methods by making outrageous suggestions.  Like, the difference between the Salem Witch trials and the Bush alternate methods is that Bush’s methods are secret.  Sooner or later Bush will spell out their techniques or lose the argument.  

  by John Boy on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:22:33 PM PDT

•  Today our President

  threw a hissy fit in front of the entire nation, because we're not letting him have his way - so far.  I say he needs a time-out.  And then he told us he wouldn't protect us anymore if we didn't let him do it his way.  ("This program will not go forward without these clarifications.")  Colin Powell is blocking him.  McCain is blocking him.  And it just makes him so MAD!.  What's he gonna do next?  Hold his breath?

  by sherlyle on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:27:44 PM PDT

  •  Random thought..

    What if Bush's threat that this program will not move forward if we don't get this clarification wasn't a threat at all, but a statement of fact?  What if his "young professionals" told him in no uncertain terms that they will not break the Geneva Conventions?  What if this is his idea of getting them to do it anyway?

    by sherlyle on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:59:43 PM PDT

  •  Spoiled bully!

    Taking his ball and bat off the field if everyone does not agree to let his side CHEAT!

    by arkdem on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:09:47 PM PDT

    •  Kind of a pattern, ain't it?

      Wonder if Barbara's gettin' out the "special paddle?"

      by sherlyle on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:12:15 PM PDT

      •  She blew it as a Mother too! N/T

        by arkdem on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:21:55 PM PDT

        •  Boy, that's the truth.

          Of course, since we've gotten to know Barbara so well over the last few years, I'm pretty sure she thinks she did just fine.  

          by sherlyle on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:33:43 PM PDT

•  Exactly

  Thank you for putting into words the creepy feeling I got watching this sociopath giving a news conference today. What an absolutely sick policy that I want nothing to do with. He is such a bully, and he thinks he is being clever.

  Thank you for posting the text of Common Article III. I had not actually read it before.

  by bruised toes on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:28:14 PM PDT

•  Would never work, but...

  ... the first thing that came to my mind when it became apparent that Cheney, Inc. was going to start playing "It!/Not It!" with the definition of torture was to turn it back on them and make them do the same for their defintion of terrorism.

  The instant you make a list of "it", everything else, by definition, becomes "not it". Common article III of Geneva is intentionally inexplicit, precisely so that scumbag, torturing regimes (like ours, apparently) couldn't play the "it/not it" game with torture.

  The defintion of terrorism is similarly, intentionally broad, and for much the same reason.

  by kingubu on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:39:35 PM PDT

  •  Pretty much every major platform they have

    is the same.  Same with the civil war question.  We liberals are suckers for definitions and specificity.  Iraq is a classic SNAFU - it doesn't really matter whether or not it is an insurgency, resistence, civil war or massive orgy - we can't control it with any credibility.  But we get often get sucked into names when maybe we should be emphasizing the adjectives that describe instead.

    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:23:41 PM PDT

    •  You said it.

      The the unstoppable Democratic juggernaut of the 20th century ran on a binary orbit between hands-on pupulists who just wanted a fair shake out of life (concrete) and professional liberal arts types who use ridiculous phrases like "binary orbit" with a straight face (abstract). The populists kept the wonks focussed on the here-and-now and the wonks finessed the policies that kept populism from becoming a short-sighted blunt instrument.

      Or, to say it another way, the eggheads and the lunchboxes got sick of being shat upon by the boss' dipshit son-in-law and ganged up on him.

      We struggle now because that no-nonsense populist center of gravity is largely missing from the party machine so we're stuck with non-stop egghead-on-egghead action.

      by kingubu on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 01:25:12 AM PDT

•  KERRY: There is no appropriate torture, period.

  End of debate!

  by arkdem on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:19:55 PM PDT

•  If Bush is confused

  by the terms of the Geneva Convention, even though the rest of the world over the years seem to have had no such problem, well fair enough.  He's not the brightest bulb.

  HOWEVER, this does not mean HE gets to redefine or otherwise 'clarify' the terms of the convention.  

  If he needs "The Geneva Convention for Dummies" written, then he needs to go back to all the signatories of the Convention to have a dumbed-downed version worked out.  

  Where does he get the idea he can do this on his own?

  by Catesby on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:33:35 PM PDT