home

Joe Lieberman Endorses McCain for President

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:03:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008, John McCain, New Hampshire (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: It's a done deal. Lieberman has endorsed John McCain for President.

*****

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard reports Sen. Joe Lieberman will endorse John McCain for President in New Hampshire tomorrow.

This is not surprising to me -- it's just two of your father's Oldsmobiles sticking together. MSNBC asked in January whether a McCain-Lieberman ticket was not a possibility.

More....

But with so many independents expected to vote at N.H. caucuses and Obama's substantial support in N.H. coming from independents (rather than Democrats who favor Hillary there) I wonder whether Lieberman's endorsement will result in Obama losing independent votes to McCain?

< Crack Cocaine Guideline Reductions and Mandatory Minimums | FISA Debate and Vote - Live Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Joe Lieberman Endorses McCain for President | 95 comments (95 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If Obama wants to get partisan (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    and really run against the war, this is his chance. I expect he won't.

    You mean turn on his mentor? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:04:15 AM EST
    Turn on the person he said he would pattern himself after?

    Parent
    I Can Feel the Joementum Now (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by john horse on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 04:53:56 PM EST
    I hate to rain on McCain's parade but when I think of Bush, McCain and Lieberman one word comes immediately to mind: Iraq.

    And when most people think about Iraq they think about this (posted on edger's group blog edging)

    I always think... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by desertswine on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    of this picture, which ran in the NYTimes last vet's day.

    A fitting memorial to Bush, McCain, and Lieberman.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    Amazing pic. Heckuva job Bush, McCain, and Lieberman et al.

    Parent
    In answer to your question: (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 06:15:41 AM EST
    I wonder whether Lieberman's endorsement will result in Obama losing independent votes to McCain?

    Maybe, but the one thing it surely should result in is Short Ride Joe, who recently returned from the CFL Party to the Democratic Party, losing his superdelegate seat to the Democratic Convention.  One of the tests in the party rules for tossing someone out or denying him a delegate seat, is whether he has endorsed a non-Democratic candidate for President.

    IF the DNC is serious about enforcing its rules against Florida and Michigan, they should be equally ruthless about Rape Gurney Joe.

    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    Obama is not getting any Independents who would vote for McCain. Their foreign policies are too different.

    Parent
    It would be an interesting race... (1.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 09:37:24 PM EST
    Right now Huckabee is busy running of the Repub base thinking that he can retain the Evangelicals and with the blessing of the MSM, who think he would be a wounded quail (pun intended) in the general election.

    Problem is, he is rapidly loosing the Evangelicals with his weak wishy washy foreign policies.. They will go to McCain. If Lieberman would agree, McCain should announce that the if nominated he will ask Lieberman to be the VP candidate... You would instantly have a fusion ticket that could win in a walk.

    Wishy Washy (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by glanton on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 09:49:22 PM EST
    Being code for, he's not enough of a war monger.  We know you well.  And here you happen to be right--he's not enough of a war monger for the base or, for that matter, for the think tanks.

    Of course, Huckabee's a bigot.  Evangelicals and social liberals are okay with that, though.  It's the not enough of a war monger thing that riles them up.

    "They will go to McCain"

    No they won't.  McCain, for all his servitude to the corporate rulership in this nation, isn;t a xenophobe and is against torture.  That makes him wishy-washy to the point of unelectable, to the Evangelical base and social liberals everywhere.

    More likely "they" will go to Romney, if they're not already with him--Romney, that moral and intellectual turd who needs to discuss modes of torture with his aspiring war criminal lawyers, to see what can be gotten away with, before pronouncing whether or not torture is actually torture.

    Parent

    Gee Glanton (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 09:25:44 AM EST
    what intelligent rebuttals you make.

    McCain is "wishy washy." Romney is a "turd."

    And you never take the time to consider the fruits of your actions.

    Did you ever think that if you remove the threat of waterboarding... aka torture to the Left....then you have actually strengthened the will of the terrorist being interrogated??

    Do you really want to do that?

    Would you actually be willing to sacrifice thousands of Americans' lives???


    Parent

    You misunderstood (again) (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by glanton on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    You misread: I said McCain is wishy-wasy according to the vaunted Evangelical base as well as according to social liberals everywhere.  Wishy washy because he is against torture and is not xenophobic.

    And no.  McCain cannot get the support of these people, however much Huckabee mucks things up.

    As for Romney, I explain very concisely why he is a moral and intellectual turd. Turning for cover to his lawyers on a question like torture is a damning example of his turd-dom.

    Finally, as to your ticking time bomb prattle:

    Dress it up however you want, stick to the euphemisms, apply as much lipstick as you want, you're still pawning off a pig.  

    Cheers!  You're on candid camera, saluting torture.  

    That defines you.

    Parent

    You inaccurate claims (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    continue....

    Nothing new...

    Parent

    Look! Jim complains of inaccuracy! (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    His complaint comes on the heels of this ignorant, inaccurate claim-ridden spew:

    Did you ever think that if you remove the threat of waterboarding... aka torture to the Left....then you have actually strengthened the will of the terrorist being interrogated??

    Do you really want to do that?

    Would you actually be willing to sacrifice thousands of Americans' lives???

    Silly Jim.  Scare rhetoric is for Republican turds.

    Parent

    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    turds?? Think I'll name you Fart Blossom...

    lol...

    Let me see. I'm a terrorist that has just been captured... And the US Congress, at the urging of Glanton, has outlawed waterboarding... Now, that doesn't help me at all. Nope, no way.

    (sarcasm alert)

    Parent

    "Helping them" (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by glanton on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:34:23 PM EST
    We do not urge outlawing torture to "help them."  We urge it to help ourselves.  To preserve a higher ground, to draw a line and say regardless, we will not cross this line.  We will not become monsters.

    Parent
    What nonsense you emote (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:32:41 PM EST
    You know, all that I have said is that I don't consider waterboarding torture. And if the circumstances are such, then all necessary measures should be taken to get information vital to saving lives.

    You, on the other hand, are not interested in such trivial things as saving lives. You had rather be "right."

    Horse hockey.

    That's the same logic that said:

    "We have to destroy the village to save it."

    Now, go tell everyone how rightful you are. How moral. How ethical. You are so good that you will let them die for you.

    Parent

    Don't consider waterboarding torture? (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:09:35 PM EST
    So you would have no problem waterboarding Bush and/or Cheney and/or Rove to force them to confess what everyone but you already knows, that they lied the country into an invasion that has killed and mutilated more than a million people, including tens of thousands of your own countrymen.


    Parent
    Hey Ed! (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:37:35 AM EST
    Do you still beat your wife??

    Do you always ask stupid questions that have already been answered?

    I mean you write dumb things.

    You think terrorists can be turned into common criminals.

    You think terrorists in Iraqi blowing up innocent Iraqi men, women and children are just insurgents trying to get the US to leave.

    And you think that Iraq, prior to the invasion was one of the world's most advanced civilizations....
    Would "prior" mean 3000 years or so ago???

    My position on this issue has been explained/written time and again yet you keep on making false claims. Writing something you know is  NOT true is what?

    I think you know the answer.  Just as you know that your scenario is fake.

    Parent

    It's one of three choices, ppj, (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:22:23 AM EST
    Not that complicated.

    You either think they should be treated better than the people they torture... or you think they shouldn't be treated better than the people they torture... or, which is more likely, you just don't think at all.

    Parent

    And people who make (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    claims they know are false..

    Now what are they called??

    Parent

    Can't choose, can you... (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 12:07:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Around here? Mostly they're called ppj. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 12:08:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Prove it. (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 12:17:47 PM EST
    But you won't.

    You just smear.

    Parent

    In the words of yourself. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    Check the archives. But you don't need to.

    And anyone who regularly reads the moronic drivel you type here doesn't need to either.

    How's your sales conversion rate here? Found anyone here stupid enough to think you make any sense?

    Yet?

    Parent

    You are getting slower (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:44:56 PM EST
    than I thought possible.

    I am not here to convert anyone, but especially you.

    I am here to let you display your total lack of logic, debating ability and how, when proven wrong, to immediately go to personal attacks.

    As for the archives threat, don't let your alligator mouth overload your humming bird behind.

    Parent

    But anyway, back to the question (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 12:39:46 PM EST
    You're running and hiding in terror from.

    You either think Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al should be treated better than the people they torture... or you think they shouldn't be treated better than the people they torture... or, which is more likely, you just don't think at all.

    Which is it, ppj?

    Simple enough question even for you.


    Parent

    The question has (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:45:49 PM EST
    been answered.

    You again prove what you are.

    Parent

    Or do you think (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:10:45 PM EST
    they should be treated better than the people they torture?

    Parent
    Torture to the left? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    Amazingly enough, the Left has been exaggerating the "torture" inherent in waterboarding for 401 years. Curse you, Al Gore!

    This resurrects the process of official cruelty under the Stuart monarchs in seventeenth century England. Persons accused of state crimes very frequently were interrogated with the use of specific techniques, including the rack, the thumbscrew, and waterboarding. King James I personally described the process in The Kings Booke (1606). He would, on the advice of his officers, "approve no new torture," but he would certainly avail himself of the existing practices. In ascending order of severity they were: thumbscrews, the rack and waterboarding. That's right. Waterboarding was considered the most severe of the official forms of torture. Worse than the rack and thumbscrews.

    Once again, the PPJ post is an impossibly dense singularity of WTF-ness from which no reality can escape.

    Parent

    hehe and a ha (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 02:57:30 PM EST
    When it comes to exaggerating, the Left has no equal...

    Can I put you down with Glanton and Molly B as people who would rather let Americans die rather than waterboard a terrorist???

    Why do you hate to defend America??

    Parent

    Fair is fair (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    Can I put you down with Glanton and Molly B as people who would rather let Americans die rather than waterboard a terrorist???

    As long as we are posing false dichotomies, can we put you down as siding with terrorists that torturing our opponents demonstrates our absence of morality?

    You can put me down as someone who would rather risk a terrorist attack than to become like them.  Put me down as a someone who wants even the most despicable criminal to face the exact same form of justice as ultra-patriotic, Constitution upholding, law abiding military veterans like myself are entitled to.

    Only coward and a sick, sadistic traitor would suggest that an American commit torture on anyone.  When did Americans become such cowards that they would give up liberties paid for with the blood of patriots, because a coward like George W. Bush said to hide under the bed from the boogieman?

    I liked my country a lot more before cowardice and sadism became our defining national qualities, and I will do all I can to get these sick f$#ks out of office.

    Parent

    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    Now, you have already told us that you like violent visions... as long as they are about political opponents, or me hitting my teachers...

    So crawl down from your perch.

    You are just like Glanton. Willing to let others die so that you can proclaim how great you are.

    Parent

    Want some (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:51:35 PM EST
    popcorn, ppj?

    American Exceptionalism In Iraq

    "After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations (backed strongly by the US and UK) imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq that lasted for 10 years (1991-2001); the harsh restrictions on imports of everything, including access to key medicines, resulted in over a million deaths, more than half a million of which were women and children. That's more deaths than the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and 9/11 combined."

    The film is an hour and fifteen minutes long....

    While you're watching it, keep in mind that George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle has happened to Iraq since this film was made.

    Willing to let others die so that you can proclaim how great you are, ppj?

    Jesus loves you. Don't bother asking what anyone else thinks of you....

    Parent

    Ed, perhaps you have heard of the (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:44:18 AM EST
    "Oil for food" scandal involving officials in the UN and Iraq???

    I think it has become quite well known since the propaganda film you refer to was made.

    And perhaps you need to understand something.

    It is the terrorists, all the various groups... Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezabloh.... with the assistance of various nation states...Iran and Iraq in the lead, that have attacked the west. That the ME Islamic theocracy countries have sought to hide by claiming that they are not responsible is fact. That reasonable people know that is pure BS is also a fact.

    Iraq was not attacked in a vacuum... In spite of the some 16 odd UN sanctions that Saddam violated, he would not have been removed by the US and its Allies and then hung by his own people after a fair and just trial had 9/11 not happened. His association with the terrorist groups is undeniable. His "rewards" to the families of suicide bombers is proven. His desire to develop new WMDs is proven.

    Iran is the same. Their intent is clear. Their leaders have stated that so plain that it is outrageous to read the quibbles of the CIA that only a few short months ago said they were a threat. Now, in what many think is a politically motivated NIE they change their mind up front, yet include a qualifier in the conclusions to hide behind.

    We are at war, Ed. It is a very old war, and it is a long war. Innocent people have died.

    And they have died because radical Moslem terrorists want to return the world to the 9th century.

    You need to figure out if you want to support a group that hangs gays and rape victims or a western culture that, even with its faults, is the best thing that has ever happened on God's Green Earth.

    Parent

    Isn't denial a wonderful thing, ppj? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    How could live with yourself without it, after all?

    Then again, maybe you're not in denial. Maybe you just like torture, burning and mutilating children, and mass death.

    Parent

    See this? Kiss it. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:35:20 PM EST
    You are just like Glanton. Willing to let others die so that you can proclaim how great you are.

    My experience puts the lie to that statement.  I would never ask someone to do something I am unwilling to do.  I put on the uniform and took my chances during the last insane war.

    If you can find my Army tattoo, you can kiss it.


    Parent

    You wrote what you wrote (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    Title goes here (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 08:46:15 AM CST
    Air America is a success?

    I look forward to Kos and Rove in a debate.  The most entertaining thing Rove could do is self-immolate on TV, with Kos handing him the Zippo. </metaphor>

    I replied.

    The problem surfaces again in (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 05:48:14 PM CST

    this statement. (You wrote)

    "Then you should punch your old teacher in the nose for failing you so badly."

    (I wrote)

    "Why the images of violence"?

    I ask again. For someone who doesn't want terrorists interrogated, those are remarkable scenes of violence.

    Why not have Rove red faced with embarrassment after being bested? Why have him burning??

    As for your service.... I did ten years in Naval Aviation, so you are not unique in that respect.

    So I ask again. Why are you against defending the American people? I know of no one calling for waterboarding of every terrorist we capture. That has been made very clear. synico and I had a very reasoned exchange of comments over several days in which I made clear that:

    "What ever it takes" methods should be used only in dire situations in which loss of American lives are at stake and it is totally believed that the terrorist has the information that will stop the attack and that there is a time requirement.

    If you have a problem with that you are asking for people to be killed because of your beliefs.

    As for your Army tatto, cover it up with a white flag of surrender.

    Parent

    Do you still beat your wife? (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 10:34:01 PM EST
    That is the same rhetorical strategy behind your sentence, "Can I put you down with Glanton and Molly B as people who would rather let Americans die rather than waterboard a terrorist???"

    Jim, let's say someone kidnapped and harmed my child.  I know I would have overwhelming urges to vengeance, to hurt that person.  That doesn't mean I want to codify my desire for vengeance into law.  Unless I want an America more like Taliban Afghanistan.  And I don't.  I don't want to be allowed to kill the killer of my loved ones.  I don't want my government torturing any people, much less those whose "guilt" is assumed without due process.  

    If we actually knew somebody in custody had the information that could save thousands of lives, if we actually knew that most unlikely of hypotheticals were true (which we will never know), then all of us would surely have that urge to do whatever was necessary.  That does not mean, however, that you codify that urge into law.    

    The most extreme example of any hypothetical can be used to justify anything.  McCarthyism destroyed many lives in the same manner.  We shouldn't use those extremes to justify and normalize egregious conduct that disgraces freedom and democracy.

    Parent

    You wanna talk moral vs immoral? OK! (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    Using "whatever it takes" tactics to force a terrorist that we know has information that will let us prevent an attack on Americans is not the same as passing a law that would allow you to take vengeance on a kidnapper that has harmed your child.

    1. In your case we are dealing with an individual who has committed a crime. The state has the ability to try and punish him. There is no need for you to take action.

    In fact, one of the most important things that distinguish a "state" vs a "tribe" is that the state becomes the arbitrator of justice eliminating blood feuds.

    2. In this case.... I think I used "totally believe" in my discussion with synico, it is known that the terrorist in question has the information to save American lives. And that is hardly unlikely, your point is merely a crutch for a weak argument.

    In fact, NOT taking all acts necessary and available to spare the lives of innocent men, women and children is IMMORAL.

    It is the equivalent of standing there and watching, taking no action when you could, someone being killed. It is, my friend, a sin of omission.

    As for hypothetical thinking.... without the ability to envision various scenarios and how the various results occur, you have no ability whatsoever to think critically and logically. You live only in a world in which you can relate to nothing that you have not actually experienced. That yields a very self centered narrow minded person.

    As you wrote in comment #58

    Trot out Gen. Giap all you want, you're stating the obvious, that protest worked. Sorry it helped "the enemy", but no Vietnamese communist fighting Western colonialism ever did a thing to me. How you fail to see our folly baffles me, but that's nothing new. The West NEVER had a chance in post-colonial Indo-China, and didn't deserve one.

    Your country was engaged in a war. The society that you depend on to protect you, to provide you the means to earn food and shelter was at war. Thousands of your fellow American were at risk.

    Yet you did not support them.

    See the comparsion????

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#94)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:55:37 PM EST
    Seriously. 400 years ago, people who actually gave people the thumbscrews and the rack knew that waterboarding was even worse.

    And now, apropos of nothing, the wise and all-knowing PPJ says they're wrong.

    That's hubris.

    Parent

    Quoting and linking to an internet rumor? (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    Sigh. Here's The King's Book. Nary a mention of what we refer to as waterboarding.

    Parent
    No Mention? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    But the Third, which is most cruel and unmerciful of all, is the destruction by insensible and inanimate things; and amongst them all, the most cruel are the two Elements of Water and Fire; and of those two the Fire most raging and merciless.
    Secondly, How wonderful it is when you shall think upon the small, or rather no ground, whereupon the Practisers were enticed to invent this Tragedy. For if these Conspirators had only been bankrupt persons, or discontented upon occasion of any disgraces done unto them; this might have seemed to have been but a work of revenge.


    Parent
    Nope (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:43:43 PM EST
    As you know, it is a description of the planned attack. It is not about the punishment of the plotters.

    Go back and read from the top.

    Parent

    Attack? (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 05:43:27 PM EST
    What is horrible for the goose is also horrible for the gander.

    Parent
    Is that supposed to make sense? (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:50:18 PM EST
    The claim made by scar and Ed is that The Kings Book describes waterboarding in relation to the Gunpowder Plot and the plotters who tried to blow up Parliment

    Now we know that the 1679 version does not.

    No other historical references show that.

    The question is, does anyone have a link that does??

    A 1606 version has been mentioned, but I haven't found it on Google.

    Perhaps you have. Can we see it or is a figment of an overheated imagination?

    Parent

    I'll just let that comment stand for the ages. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:39:52 PM EST
     

    Parent
    Don't expect "terminology" (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:10:18 PM EST
    to remain the across 500 years...

    Parent
    remain ::the same:: across 500 years (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:11:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Let's have a link. (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:48:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Better read it again more closely. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:36:54 PM EST
    It'll help to cross reference it with other historical records too.

    Parent
    Hehe - (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:16:51 PM EST
    Well, I just copied it over to Word and did a search for "waterboarding." Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

    I did find:

    In this great and horrible attempt, whereof the like was never either heard or read, I observe three wonderful, or rather miraculous events. ...
    But the Third, which is most cruel and unmerciful of all, is the destruction by insensible and inanimate things; and amongst them all, the most cruel are the two Elements of Water and Fire; and of those two the Fire most raging and merciless

    But this is referring to the crime of being burned/blown up by gunpowder.

    And this from another source:

    The plotters were executed in Westminster and the brutal fate of being hung, drawn and quartered ensured their deaths would show no mercy and inflict maximum suffering.

    Guy Fawkes Night, also known as Bonfire Night, is celebrated with fireworks, and the burning of effigies that resemble Guy Fawkes. His actual death, however, was not by being burned at the stake, but by being hanged, drawn and quartered,

    The gruesome execution of Guy Fawkes is celebrated  
    every year in Britain. He wasn't actually burned at the stake  - the punishment for heresy (a crime against religion), he was given a traitor's death - hanging, drawing and quartering

    Fawkes was tortured over the next few days, after the King granted special permission to do so. James directed that the torture should be gentle at first, and then more severe. Sir William Wade, Lieutenant of the Tower of London at this time, supervised the torture and obtained Fawkes's confession. For three or four days Fawkes said nothing, let alone divulge the names of his co-conspirators

    There is no record of exactly what forms of torture Fawkes was subjected to, although it is almost certain that manacles were employed and, most probably, also the rack. It would appear that he was also confined for some period of time to the infamous "Little Ease" located in the Tower of London...a cell so small that it was impossible to stand, sit or lie down properly with any degree of comfort.

    Now, could we see some of those records?

    I'll bet they were written using MS Word...

    Now, when did that happen befofre???


    Parent

    Look down. (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:22:55 PM EST
    I know it's hard to do from you vantage point. But try...

    Parent
    Facts be facts... (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:29:55 PM EST
    You claimed the information was contained in the Gunpowder plot... It wasn't.

    Quit whining and just admit that you were wrong.

    Parent

    No. You lie. (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:33:43 PM EST


    Parent
    I demand an apology (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    Torture to the left? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 12:41:58 PM CST

    (Scar quotes)

    "....Persons accused of state crimes very frequently were interrogated with the use of specific techniques, including the rack, the thumbscrew, and waterboarding. King James I personally described the process in The Kings Booke (1606)."

    Quoting and linking to an internet rumor? (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 02:57:00 PM CST
    Sigh. Here's The King's Book. Nary a mention of what we refer to as waterboarding.

    You jump in.

    Better read it again more closely. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 06:36:54 PM CST
    It'll help to cross reference it with other historical records too.

    I research and respond.

    Hehe - (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:16:51 PM CST
    Well, I just copied it over to Word and did a search for "waterboarding." Zilch. Nada. Nothing.....

    "There is no record of exactly what forms of torture Fawkes was subjected to, although it is almost certain that manacles were employed and, most probably, also the rack."

    Now, could we see some of those records?
    I'll bet they were written using MS Word...
    Now, when did that happen befofre???

    Since "The King's Book" claim has been proven wrong, you attempt to bring in "new" information and make a new claim.

    Look down. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:22:55 PM CST
    I know it's hard to do from you vantage point. But try...

    I respond with facts.

    Facts be facts... (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:29:55 PM CST
    You claimed the information was contained in the Gunpowder plot... It wasn't.
    Quit whining and just admit that you were wrong.

    As you have again been caught, you make a personal attack.

    No. You lie. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:33:43 PM CST

    Summary:

    What you did was defend, first of all, scar's claim that  waterboarding was described in the "The King's Book." The book has no such claim.

    You then added "historical references." The references you provided do not claim that Guy Fawkes, one of the traitors described in "The Kings Book," was waterboarded.

    What you have done is assume. Now, if scar had wanted to argue that waterboarding could be assumed, or if you had wanted to so argue, I would not comment.

    But no. You want to make claims that you can not prove, and when challenged. You resort to calling me a liar.

    And, again, I have proven you wrong.

    Edger, what we have here is a disagreement over what first, "The Kings Book" said and then what your historical references say. I did not claim you,or scar was lying, just that you are wrong.

    Yet you make the claim "You lie."

    Your hysterical false claims are well known. And as you are well aware I have previously proven you wrong, and shown it to the world.

    Your attacks are also well known. You wrote:

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    That isn't going to work. I am going to be right here showing the world what you do, and what you believe. Use all the nasty remarks you want. They don't dent the facts, and they certainly demonstrate your limited ability to debate.

    I demand an apology. Let us all see if you are man enough to admit your error.

    Parent

    Quit lying. (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    Demand all you want. Whine all you want. You'll get respect when you earn it, which in your case probably means never.


    Parent
    You have been shown to all (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:52:01 PM EST
    who read what you are,

    Enjoy.

    Parent

    There is no reference to what we call (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    waterboarding in the The King's Book. Period.  The original document itself has been linked to.

    If you have some link to that "book" of even a link to a quote form that book, that shows that my statement is in error, please show it to us.

    If you have proof that my statement is in error, I'll happily admit it.

    Don't waste our time with "It's so, because Edger/MDD/LeftCoaster/whoever says it's so." nonsense.

    Parent

    I didn't say there was. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    I said read it again more closely and cross reference it with other historical records.

    Don't waste my time, your time or anyone else's time claiming I said something I did not say. You are not ppj.

    You're smarter than that, sarc. You and I both know it.

    Parent

    You embarrass yourself. (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    Despite what many, apparently, wish to believe, waterboarding is not mentioned in The King's Book.

    Period.

    Parent

    Maybe I was wrong. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    You act like ppj more and more often lately, sarc...

    Parent
    Well, if so, (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    then I must be acting more and more like you...except that I don't stoop to the most childish act of all - that of rating other's comments.
    King James I personally described the process [of waterboarding] in The Kings Booke (1606).
    This is utterly, wholly and completely untrue. Period.

    Thanks for keeping the issue alive such that no one reading the thread could possibly have missed it.

    I won't be responding further to this.

    Parent

    This is utterly, wholly and completely untrue? (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    How would you know?

    They quoted a book from 1606.

    You linked to a transcript from a 1679 book, and you couldn't find what they said they found in a book from 1606, and base your judgment on that?

    You are capable of better, sarc.....

    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    in their article the link is to the same 1679 book you linked to.

    But their quote is not from what they linked to.

    As I said above... you'd better read it again more closely. It'll help to cross reference it with other historical records too.

    Parent

    Typical Edger (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    But their quote is not from what they linked to.

    So, if they had some ham they'd have some ham and eggs if they had some eggs.

    Okay, let's see, for the first time, a link that will prove your point.

    And remember, Scar's point concerned the gunpowder plot and Guy Fawkes.

    Parent

    Sorry, ppj (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:27:25 PM EST
    You've had all the playtime you get for today.

    Parent
    So you admit that you can't provide (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:31:49 PM EST
    a link.

    Typical.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    SUO's link is the same link from the Scott Horton's original story in Harpers. Do you have another link?

    Parent
    Which is why I said (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    to cross reference with other articles. There are some links in my comment at the bottom of this thread, and your quote is clear too.

    Parent
    No: (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:40:13 PM EST
    There is nothing in the link that says Guy Fawkes was waterboarded. Here everyone can read for themselves.

    In fact, your link says:

    Guy Fawkes lasted 30 minutes on the rack before he confessed all in his part of the GunpowderPlot..

    Other means of torture used in the Tower included the thumbscrew, the boot, the caschie-laws, the langirnis, the narrow-bore, the iron collar, the pynebanis, the bilboes (which compressed the ankles), the pilliwinks (which squeezed the fingers), and the brakes, a device used to break the victims' teeth.  Victims were burned with fire, had gauze forced down into their stomach, and had water poured into their throat.

    In fact, the only description using water does not resemble waterboarding..

    had gauze forced down into their stomach, and had water poured into their throat

    That is not the same as simulating someone drowning...

    Let's see your proof.

    Parent

    That's what I said...... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:23:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    I didn't see it until after I posted my comment.

    Parent
    Scar - How about a link to the above?? (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 11:46:40 AM EST
    Tell us who wrote it.

    Parent
    Win in a walk? On what planet? (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:06:43 AM EST


    Parent
    The only planet I am aware (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 09:42:23 AM EST
    of having human life is called "Earth." Look out your window. That big yellow/orange thing is called the "Sun."

    Romney gives many of the Evangelicals problems associated with his religion so I don't think they will go there. (They might in the general election because the choices are limited. Or they might just stay home.)

    Huckabee has a certain appeal because of his religion. BUT when his foreign policy is tossed in, his past support for illegal aliens... then he is weak on the secular issues that motivate them.

    That leaves McCain, Thompson and Rudy. My fav is Rudy and Thompson as a ticket. But that aside, divorce is not an issue with the Evangelicals. Roe v Wade is, so is illegal immigration and so is the war. They support it.

    McCain comes out best on those. Lieberman pulls the independents plus the conservative Democrats.

    You do remember that he trounced the Far Left in CT?????

    Parent

    Supporting Revisionist history Jim? (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    There was no far left in CT. Only a moderate to right (Joe) who is falling further off the right edge and a moderate to left (Ned) Democratic candidate. There was an extreme rightwinger running on the official GOP ticket, but he was buried thanks to the GOP stabbing their own candidate in the back.

    Joe's stock value as an "independent Democrat" has plunged as far as Enron stock.

    Somehow I am not surprised you support the most authoritarian Anti-American candidates- Rudy and Fred.

    Why do you hate democracy?

    Parent

    Have it your way... (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    The anti-war candidate supported by the Far Left got his head handed to him in the general election.

    And I am glad you aren't surprised. Wouldn't want to startle you.

    Why do you hate defending the country??

    Parent

    But Jim, defending our country and our values (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    is exactly what I am doing!!

    And again, Jim, Ned Lamnt and his supporters were center left, not far left.

    Geez keep up will ya!

    Parent

    What he's refering to (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    is the fact that "the far Left", when not busy trying to contaminate our precious bodily fluids, probobly liked Kerry and Lamont slightly more than Shrub and Lieberman.

    Parent
    When he's not (by proxy) (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    fighting jihadists, he's still fighting commies.

    Parent
    Gee Molly, Ned didn't have any (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    Far Left supporters?? Who knew??

    Guess they didn't want to stop the war...

    Parent

    Not everyone who opposes the war is far left Jim (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:57:31 PM EST
    Or didn't you know. I am sure it suits your propaganda purposes to make sure your arguments are based with that assumption, but that doesn't make it true.

    Parent
    From where he stands (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    97% of the world is "the farrrr lefffttt" (low rumbling tone here)

    Parent
    Oh come now... (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    Lamont made his bid based on the support of the anti-war Left. The Far Left.

    Now. Go kid your friends and I'll kid mine, but lets not kid each other.

    Parent

    Again I am sure it suits your propaganda purposes (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 10:42:46 PM EST
    but don't kid yourself. Those opposed to the War in 2006 were in the majority. Unless you wish to concede a majority of the county is far left...

    Parent
    huh?? (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:27:34 PM EST
    Do you really want to claim that everyone who voted for a Democrat in 2006 was against the war??

    hehe

    The issue is this.

    The anti-war Left got behind Lamont and he defeated Lieberman. Good lord. The bragging and chest beating went on for days.

    Then Lieberman beat Lamont in the general.

    Parent

    Have you seen any polls on the war since 2004? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:05:41 PM EST
    Lieberman won because the GOP sacrificed their own candidate. This should tell you everything you need to know about the GOP.

    Had the GOP backed their own candidate, Lamont would have beaten Lieberman. Lieberman got a small minority of Democrats and independents and a landslide of GOP votes.

    Lamont also screwed up by going on vacation after winning the primary.

    Parent

    Who??? (none / 0) (#3)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    Who the heck is "Joe Lieberman"? Never heard of him.

    The Britney Spears of Senators (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 06:01:15 AM EST
    re: Who the heck is "Joe Lieberman"?

    Lieberman is the Britney Spears of the US Senate.  You know, like, "we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."

    Parent

    Wonder or wish? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    But with so many independents expected to vote at N.H. caucuses and Obama's substantial support in N.H. coming from independents (rather than Democrats who favor Hillary there) I wonder whether Lieberman's endorsement will result in Obama losing independent votes to McCain?

    Well in 2004 there wasn't a republican primary race freeing up every independent in the state to vote in the Dem. primary. Seeing as how he got 9 percent (coming in 5th place, behind Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Clark) in 2004 versus 39 percent for Kerry and 26 percent for Dean, I think you would have a difficult time proving that his endorsement will have any weight on voters.  In fact i would argue the opposite, if he endorse a democratic candidate it would more then likely hurt them.

    Lieberman and Kerry (none / 0) (#16)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    When Kerry briefly flirted with McCain about being VP in 2004, I guess that was OK, whereas whatever Joe does is ridiculous on its face.
    A McCain-Lieberman third party ticket would run well if the two nominees are polarizing sorts like Hillary and Rudy.  

    More trolling from you (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by glanton on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    When Kerry briefly flirted with McCain about being VP in 2004, I guess that was OK

    Who said it was "okay"?  

    Parent

    Kerry and McCain (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:08:08 PM EST
    Wikipedia says that Kerry made "serious overtures", and when you google Kerry McCain ticket 2004, you find Biden endorsing the ticket.  I don't know what TL commentators had to say, although in retrospect if there were a Kerry-McCain ticket in 2004 then we'd have President Kerry today.

    Parent
    That was not what you were asked. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:23:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I guess wingnuts don't have google... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:00:09 PM EST
    ...or maybe just water on the brain.

    Waterboarding: A Tortured History (NPR)

    Medieval Torture
    During the Middle Ages, torture was a very common way to punish offenders. Following are the most common torture devices used during the Middle Ages. Viewer discretion is advised.

    History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding

    The water board technique dates back to the 1500s during the Italian Inquisition. A prisoner, who is bound and gagged, has water poured over him to make him think he is about to drown.

    Current and former CIA officers tell ABC News that they were trained to handcuff the prisoner and cover his face with cellophane to enhance the distress. According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War, the water board technique is a "very exquisite torture" that should be outlawed.

    The Tower of London

    Other means of torture used in the Tower included the thumbscrew, the boot, the caschie-laws, the langirnis, the narrow-bore, the iron collar, the pynebanis, the bilboes (which compressed the ankles), the pilliwinks (which squeezed the fingers), and the brakes, a device used to break the victims' teeth.  Victims were burned with fire, had gauze forced down into their stomach, and had water poured into their throat.  
    Joe Lieberman Endorses McCain for President | 95 comments (95 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment