Keith Olbermann and Lawrence O'Donnell Do Not Take Torture Seriously

Keith Olbermann long ago raised vamping to a high art. Originally, a steadfast, bold, refreshing and groundbreaking progressive voice for MSNBC, his Countdown show has devolved into a display of self-aggrandizing name calling featuring he, Rush, Bill (Billo'), and Sean, leaving us with, aside from that, a vacant hour of bloviating that demands increased worker compensation for the camera operators struck by flying spittle during Olbermann "special comments."

But last night, his show, with a major assist from MSNBC analyst and Huffington contributor, Lawrence O'Donnell, reached a low that they both should be embarrassed by.

Keith was exercised by the ignorant, inappropriate, giggling promise, offered by -- beneath-comment, elevated-by-any-comment -- Sean Hannity, that he would be willing to be waterboarded to benefit families of the troops. Charity torture, as it were. Keith then pumped up the silliness by offering $1,000 for every second Sean could put up with this.

Then, O'Donnell shows up. Thankfully, his grave visage seemed to suggest he was about to elevate the topic of torture out of "you-show-me-yours-I'll-show-you-mine."

But then... Keith: This pretty much proves it, doesn't it? Hannity and his fellow travelers do not take this topic seriously. O'Donnell: No they don't, and I know why. There is no question about it. The reason Sean Hannity thinks torture is a good idea, the reason Sean Hannity thinks it works, is because it would work on him."

Hold up...! Isn't the point that, in addition to disgracing America's good name -- we'll skip Allende, et al. -- torture doesn't work? Al Queda, Fox host, no one. Doesn't work. If it did, the argument over it would be considerably more complex. And, a happier one for the right-wing. Thankfully, on the very network that Olbermann and O'Donnell were getting it wrong, part of the day had been spent underlining the point that it doesn't work and so, not only does the end not justify the means... there is no "end."

O'Donnell went on to say that, "I am, like Sean Hannity, one of those cowards, just like Dick Cheney... who has refused throughout my life to... ever subject myself to..." military service/mortal danger. Now, the chickenhawk argument is a great one, but completely besides the point, in fact, deleterious to the point, here. The cavalcade of wrong-headedness continued with O'Donnell making the argument that torture would not work on al Queda, because they are tenaciously, suicidally committed to their cause. But, wait, once again. Isn't it, at the very least, unprovable by the spooks that poster boy for torture, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, even he, #2 majordomo of terrorism, gave us any usable intel... because if he'd offered a few words, after almost 200 dunkings, he'd offer any fairy tale the dunkers wanted to hear, because that's the outcome of torture - al-Queda or FOX host?

Where was Keith through all this? Following up. Figuring out how much money Hannity owes military families. Hannity. Hannity. Hannity. "Sean, we've both shown you ours, now you sure as hell better show us yours!"

If Hannity watched Countdown he can come back on his own show on FOX today and say, "see, even Olbermann and O'Donnell believe torture works on some people." And, sitting at home, legions of Hannity-ites can take comfort.

Olbermann got the first part right -- torture is a "serious stuff." As such, it deserves to be argued by those who will choose to discuss the logic of the case seriously, not confuse the issue by riffing on wrongheaded semi-comedic premises they thought of in the green room.

Comments

[Irishman40]

Article From Wall Street Journal on who knew what when with regards to waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087384453961191.html

[research]

It may be true, but I can't trust a Murdock rag.

[Irishman40]

I wish i could post the whole article,

however the author makes what I consider a good case showing why the terrorists are not entitled to protections under law.

I know this will make most of the people here not even want to bother to read it, but he provides historical examples, to back up his case.

in case here it is: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGNlYzk1OWYxODVmOTRhMGE1Zjk3ODk0YmUyZTkyN2M=

And please hold the insults about the source. Theres a lot I could say about what I think of the Huffington Post.

[research]

I agree with you about the DINO Dems in congress, like pelosi and Fienstien who probably approved of tortured and certainly knew about it.

But the rational that Civilians you paid bounties for are "enemy combatants" Is absolutely wrong.

The only people who are "enemy Combatants" are people you have proven through standard court procedures, free from torture.

Legally, the people we tortured were "civilians".

[Irishman40]

No. legally they were not civilians. They were unlawful enemy combatants. I cant disprove that we didnt pay bounties for some people turned over to us on the battlefield. However, the ones who had enhanced techniques applied to them were independently vetted to have been either members of Al Qaeda (and hence not civilians). Or were captured on the battle field by Coalition forces (to include Iraqi Army personnel). Again. Not civilians.

I provided a link elsewhere to an article that discusses the restrictions and conditions under which the CIA were allowed to waterboard. Did a very good job making sure the recipients were not innocent civilians

[ebanks84]

For you to even suggest such a thing as this is ludicrous to say the least. Keith and O'Donnell were making a point and that's all. They know torture is illegal and would not have agreed to it for charitable reasons anyway. It was all a joke on Hannity because they KNEW he would not subject his cowardly self to such a thing in the first place.

You got played with that assumption and could have saved yourself a long spiel for nothing.

[Irishman40]

Ran out of space in previous post with regards to my "ends justifying means" question. Wanted to ask one follow up question

For those who believe that it would be ok to torture to save a loved ones life (if there are any here who will admit it) , why do you believe its not ok for the government to torture to get information to save American lives? Because the government has no personal stake in the outcome? But they are representing us, and we DO have a personal stake in the outcome.

Do they owe more to the terrorists trying to kill us than they do to us?

And again, I'm not granting the point that waterboarding is torture, I'd just like to generate some thinking on the torture question.

[johnwinner]

We owe it to ourselves as a people and to the nation as we wish to leave it to our children, to hold to a moral standard that systematic torture violates unforgivably. Else there isn't any nstion here worth defending, just another bunch of self-centered thugs with guns.
All of your 'ends and means' arguments presuppose that torturers get valid, useful information through the practise. This simply isn't so. The history of the Grand Inquisition is filled with confessions by torture victimes that they had sexual intercourse with the devil. Boy I bet that information saved a lot of lives! State police in the Soviet Ubion actually had quotas of 'likely suspects' to meet, so they would torture someone to implicate others they coul then arrest. A similar incentive ultimately led to the 'executions' of whole families in the French Revolution and again in Khmer Rouge Cambodia.
But look, I'm asking myself why am I bothering to argue with you. This isn't about 'keeping America safe,' you just want someone to say 'acts of cruelty are acceptible as long as they're conducted by Americans.' You just want to feel comfortable living in an America where right-wing excess you enjoy voyeuristically are always forgiveable. No decent person can give that to you, I'm sorry.

[Irishman40]

I've pointed out elsewhere rebuttals to all of the points you've made here, so im not going to take the time to repeat them here.

simply leave you with this article to ponder.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGNlYzk1OWYxODVmOTRhMGE1Zjk3ODk0YmUyZTkyN2M=

[Irishman40]

Just in case you dont read the article,

It does a pretty good job demolishing the unstated assumptions you seem to assume go without saying in your above post

I've noticed this on the left a lot. A habit of mind that just assumes things to be so obviously true that they don't even bother taking the time to support their position.

[Irishman40]

First, the lead in. Most of the posters here are of the opinion that waterboarding is torture and torture is ALWAYS wrong whether its legal or not. So therefore we should never waterboard.

There are two premises in that argument, but for the purpose of this post I only want to address the second premise

The reasons stated for it being wrong boil down to the "ends never justify the means" line of reasoning.

Folks get wrapped up in theoretical discussions about ticking time bombs and saving abstract lives so lets make it personal.

As ive asked elsewhere, Would no one here demand torture of a suspect if it COULD lead to saving a loved ones life? I won't even insist that it WOULD lead to saving their lives. Just that it COULD.

You would all be willing to risk the life of YOUR daughter, father, mother, son, if all the other methods had failed, time was running out and you had a ratbag in front of u who might know where she is? You wouldnt torture in that case?

Because if you WOULD be willing to perform waterboarding or some other "torture" in that situation, then you are admitting that the ends DO justify the means in some situations.

Of course if you admit that the ends DO justify the means in some cases, then what your really saying with regards to waterboarding terrorists, is that you dont believe the ends (attempting to save american lives) justified those means.

[ebanks84]

That theory would work with me. I love my family as much as you do or anybody else. And I would want this person to know that by talking with him, making him believe in me as being trustworthy. I would hope to develop a more personal relationship with him by asking about his family and kids and how he felt about them. He just might have a heart and want to help me protect my family also. Any other way only makes him want to tell me anything whatsoever in order to stop his pain or fear. There's NEVER any guarantees that anything a tortured person says is reliable. The only reliable thing I can think of is "truth serum". Give him a couple of shots on different occasions to see if he says the same thing again. That to me would guarantee my belief in what he is saying especially if he cannot remember what he had said.

To me, Pain begets more pain for you.

[ebanks84]

Correction: "That theory WOULD NOT work with me!"

[Irishman40]

He just might have a heart!? In this example, if he had a heart, he wouldn't have participated in a kidnapping operation and threatened a child with death for money. For that kind of person, I believe the threat of pain or death would produce results better than empathy. And remember, in the example above, there is a time constraint. Developing empathy takes time.

[ebanks84]

I have a good example if you wish to listen. I knew this guy many moons ago who the entire neighborhood knew was a thief and drug addict. He lived next door to me and I only knew him because he was my girlfriend's boyfriend. He was a true he llraiser. He would always take her money, beat her up, and she would never all the cops. We, her neighbors did it for her because she was scared.

One day he came to talk with me about getting my friend to marry him, probably because he figured he could get her money legally then. We talked for hours and I can't remember exactly what we talked about. All I remember is that I asked him to do me a favor. He sair sure, what? I asked if he would NOT hurt my friend if he wanted me to continue being HIS friend. I can't say for sure, but he never hit my friend again. He kept stealing her money though:) but was never physically abusive again. He's de ad now. Was kil led by somebody in New York.

The point is I had to have hit one of his "kinder" buttons. And I will always believe that until the day I depart. Understand?

[Irishman40]

Yes I understand. You believe terrorists have Kinder buttons to push. I dont. As it happens, the terrorists in question (KSM). Didnt have kinder buttons, because the CIA spent weeks trying to break him using those other methods and they failed.

[ConfuciusSay-]

Mr. Solomon appears to have been far more offended by the manner of the interviews than by the actual matters at hand.

[Dragline]

I don't particularly like Keith Olberamann's act either, but I think the author went out of his way to be offended by this exchange.

[ebanks84]

Way out of his way.

[johnwinner]

You're actually missing the bigger picture, although you've got a snapshot of a part of it.
One of the ways a civilized people deals with political stupidity is through humor. But torture is such an obviously barbaric practice, it cannot be "dealt with" by a civilized people who have embraced its practice - for, by definition, they are no longer civilized. The humor - the satire, the sarcasm - surrounding the Bush/Cheney torture practice is all sick (left or right), because it is the attempt by formerly civilized people to move beyond a barbaric past - without admitting their barbarism. It can't be done.
All this was foreseeable in 2003; the torture was known (thanks to the International Red Cross and Amnesty International), it was simply denied in the media. A handful of us saw the damage this would do to the American psyche, but were ignored, silenced, belittled. And the rest of you did - what? Vote the "American Idol"?
Now it is sad to see the waffling efforts of Americans to "deal with" their own practice of torture, but the bottom line is - Americans became barbarians and are no longer worthy of civilized respect, only pity. It will take America some years, inner struggle, much effort at redemption, to rise above this past. The Germans, the Russians, and similarly lapsed civilized people, are still paying for theirs.

[Irishman40]

Hmm,

Did Americans become barbarians back in WWII when we firebombed Dresden (KILLING over 100,000 "innocent" civilians) and other cities? Were we barbarians when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing 90,000 and 70,000 civilians respectiviely).

If that did not makes us barbarians, I fail to see how waterboarding (which didnt kill the objects of the waterboarding or leave them permanently impaired) makes us barbarians.

If it DID make us barbarians, well, I fail to see how adding waterboarding to that record makes any noticeable difference to our humanitarian record.

And oh btw, who ordered the Firebombing of dresden and the A bombing of japan? Everyones favorite democrats FDR and Truman.

[rabiddog6708]

I think you fail to see a lot of things. Fail is a word that applies to every aspect of your existance.

[ConfuciusSay-]

Of course you are barbarians.

The question is, how hypocritical is the nation that condemns others, and then does the same stuff? Will it seek to take action against its torturers, or celebrate them? And why should any nation feel any impetus to adjust its behaviour because the US claims faux outrage at human rights abuses elsewhere?

The losers here are not just the victims. It is the very reason for the law, which simply stipulates that the Strong shall not always prevail.

[ebanks84]

Americans NEVER became barbarians. War mongers did for the joy and power it gave them.

[Irishman40]

One more note with regards to the comparison of the USA to the Germans, Russians, and other similar formerly civilized peoples. What were the purposes for which these other civilizations commited their crimes and the purpose for which we as Americans, committed ours?

Hmm

Purpose of germany's crimes= creation of the master race and the elimination of the Jews. 60 million deaths as a direct result
Purpose of Russia's crimes- creation of the new communist man- death toll over 50 million

Purpose of United states "crimes" (via waterboarding)- Saving of american lives. death toll= 0

Oh yea we really compare.

[johnwinner]

Simple minded and historically uninformed. Torture is not comparable to acts of war, however misguided or destructive. While the number of deaths resulting from torture at Gitmo is unknown, deaths at Abu Grahib are known; but counting the number of deaths involved is a superficial issue, since it is not death that makes an act barabaric. The purpose of torture is always the same - enjoyment of pain inflicted on a presumed enemy as personal demonstration of power, i.e., intimidation) - it is never about information and protects no one, since no reasonable standard of investigation, prosecution, or trial is used and hence no reasonable judgment can be made, no reasonable decision can be taken, based on the outcome. That is precisely whty after WWII America prosecuted and, convicted, and executed Japanese prison camp officials for their torture of American soldiers.
By the way America didn't firebomb Dresden, that was Churchill's deciion.
And you actually agree with the basic premise of the Nazis and the Soviets - that the ends justify the means - you simply want to argue for American ends rather than German or Russian ends. The banality of evil demonstrated again, thank you very much.

[ebanks84]

You keep saying we, as Americans, like the American people itself condoned the killing done in these wars. The American people have no idea the truth behind these wars in the first place. It was all about the almighty dollar and power.

[ebanks84]

So absolutely true. As a matter of fact, besides being in Hollywood movies, the American people never condoned torture in the first place. They wanted the enemies caught and dealt with but I never remember hearing people yelling in the streets to "torture" the enemies. And most people like me didn't really think that kind of stuff happened except IN the movies.

[Irishman40]

You've lived in a very protected world then if you didnt think things like that happen in war. Things like that and far worse are done. War is HELL and it cant be made pretty. Not if you want to win.

I checked some poll results and you are correct about majority of americans not supporting torture, when questioned in the abstract. Poll result was from 2004.

And again, I'm not saying torture should be a first option. It should be a last resort. In that opinion it appears I am out of the mainstream. So be it.

[StillAmused]

Willing to take a dose of your own syrupy medicine?

"a vacant hour of bloviating"?

Cite one -- ONE! -- instance of an Olbermann editorial piece that was not supported by documentation or -- Egad! -- videotape. We can wait...

"self-aggrandizing name calling"?

Olbermann's unrelenting targeting of Hannity, O'Reilly and Rush 'The Comedian' Limbaugh (among other right-wing shills) constitutes the ONLY persistent TV humiliation of these GOP carnival barkers, and it's usually accomplished with their own words. Not Olbermann's opinion... THEIR OWN WORDS.

In a media market heavily dominated by right-wing screechers who specialize in the dissemination of GOP talking points, half-truths, ideological pap and empty slogans, does an unremitting, edgy shaming of these tools upset your delicate sensibilities?

"Isn't the point that, in addition to disgracing America's good name... torture doesn't work?"

No, professor. The "point", to those capable of critical thinking (and informed by the latest effusion of torture-related documents), is that torture generally doesn't work if you're seeking truthful information, but it most CERTAINLY "works" if the objective is to break the subject and elicit what you WANT to hear. If you weren't riding up so tall in the saddle on your high horse, you would have recognized that very point in O'Donnell's comments, down here on the ground where one can examine things up close.

Too many moving parts in the conversation?

Your self-righteous pontification provides an object example of Voltaire's observation that "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

[diamonded]

If you were to take StillAmused comment and make it the post, and make this post the comment, it would expose the author as just one more whining repuglican that can't accept the reality that mommy has them on a time-out and acting indignant will only extend the penalty. David Steinberg is another "comedian" whose attempts at political humor hit the deck with a resounding clunk.

I really resented this guys remarks but lack the writing skills to take him to task so I read a bunch of his stuff looking for a hook and luckily stumbled on this comment. StillAmused, when are you gonna start posting here? Your ever bit as up to the moment as the rest of my heros, two of them featured in this post.

[swift goat pet for truth]

I understand about Mr Solomon's view on KO.
But after a day being whacked by every Corporate Media arm out there, it is comforting to me to hear somebody stick up for MY side of the philosophical divide.

OK Rachel probably does it better.
But two hours total (OK, 3 hours, counting Stewart and Colbert), after a 90 hour aggregate of Corporate Media is not too much.

[tfoley]

Olbermann's obsession with Bill, Sean and the rest of fox news is getting down right creepy. I enjoy when he is going after Bush Cheney et al. but when half the show is about fox news and rush its easier for me to just watch fox news for myself

[nomobull]

they don;t report news they either create it from thin air. or twist facts to suit their opinion. and they are being called on it. don't like it don't watch countdown.

[kmich718]

FOX wouldn't know NEWS if their corporate lives depended on it. What a sad state of affairs for you...

[macchugsid]

the information about the plot on the west coast was obtained 6 months before we ever started torturing any of these guys. I would advise Irishman40 to get his facts and timelines straight.

The FBI has said that the info was obtained through traditional interrogation and debriefing methods. This information has been disclosed recently in released memos and reports. The FBI director explicitly told his agents not to participate because he knew this day would come and there would be a reckoning for it.

There is also evidence that the reason why the interrogators water-boarded these guys so many times was because they were trying to establish a link between Saddam and Al-Queda. This was nothing more than an attempt to justify and illegitimate war.

Torture was and is still illegal. We as a people should not even consider using it. As far as the morality of it goes it is just about personal morality it is about our collective morality as a nation. We do not torture. Period

[Irishman40]

Ok you've provided statements from the FBI claiming information was obtained prior to KSM being captured. here's another article:

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

Khalid Sheik Mohammad, a top al Qaeda leader who divulged information -- after being waterboarded -- that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned terrorist attack on Los Angeles. CNSNews.comm) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Obviously one side is lying. You'll back the FBI story because it supports your position. I of course back the CIA story because it fits my position. How do we determine which side is correct?

[Irishman40]

Oh and by the way, Absolutes are easy when you don't think you have any skin in the game. I'm sure you don't think you will ever personally be threatened with death by a terrorist. And the odds are good you wont. Therefore, its quite easy to insist on absolute rules when you don't believe there will ever be any personal negative consequences for your moral preening and there IS a personal upside for echoing the prevailing opinion.

Would you be able to maintain your certitude however if you did have skin the game?
How about if terrorists had your daughter and there was a 1 day window to rescue her. Only leads police had is a member of the terrorist organization that has your daughter, and hes refusing to talk.

Would waterboarding still be out of the question in that scenario?

Read the link I provided about the CIA insisting waterboarding led to the foiling of plots. It was used on 3 terrorists only out of hundreds captured. there's a section on the restrictions that were placed on its use and the time contstraints that the CIA were operating under at the time. THose time constraints closely match the hypothetical situation I outlined above.

[generationyes]

You cannot be taken seriously. You're basically arguing that fear of terrorists is a license to commit any atrocity you want. Which means it's a free for all for anyone who can make the case that they're sufficiently frightened of what *might* happen - they also get a free hand to do anything to anyone else they're afraid of. That way lies anarchy. You can live in and promote a civilized world where rules are followed - no matter what anyone else does, or you can live by the law of the jungle. You won't last in the second scenario, believe me.

[Irishman40]

As for the FBI director recommending that FBI agents not participate in the activity for fear of legal procecution. He's probably right, as members of a domestic LAW enforcement agency, FBI agents probably could be prosecuted for performing waterboarding under any number of different laws. Just as im sure it would be illegal for FBI agents to go over seas and fight in a war zone (the military's job) or use predator drones to kill terrorists in their huts (as the CIA is doing). However, just because it would be illegal for the FBI to perform those actions, it does not automatically follow that it would be illegal for the CIA or the US Military to perform those actions.

The US Military and the CIA both perform numerous other activities that it would be illegal for the FBI to perform.

[ignrnthllblly]

If torture had but one end--and we could all agree on what that end is--then we could answer indeed whether torture works. The problem is that torture has many ends and that, some of them, it accomplishes quite well. Retribution? Check. Sadism? Check. Impelling statements? Check. Obtaining justification? Check.

The inarguable efficacy of torture to accomplish these ends drives the faith that torture will also accomplish its ostensible purpose: to obtain information that is reliable, valuable and timely AND which may be distinguished from the information that torture will also necessarily elicit which meets fewer than all three of those qualifications. And faith is precisely what it is, because there are no rational means to make that distinction (again, in a necessarily timely fashion).

The problem with the "ticking bomb" justification is that it first REQUIRES the ticking bomb; then that the torture works in the sense of meeting the three above qualifications, plus the proviso that we are able to distinguish actionable intelligence from the dreck, THEN that we are able to react in a TIMELY fashion. Clearly this is a problematic equation--but the torture would still "work" to accomplish the secondary ends of retribution, etc.

Water-boarding Hannity couldn't possibly prove that torture works (nothing from nothing leaves nothing)--but it would demonstrate that torture "works".

So, strap him down, I say.

[Irishman40]

Hey ignrnthllblly,

If you read the link below about the restrictions and conditions underwhich the CIA were allowed to you use waterboarding, you will see that the Bush administration worked very hard to assure that all of those subconditions you listed were met before waterboarding could be authorized.

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

"....This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.....’”

So yes, if you're going on a fishing expedition, the use of waterboarding is highly problematic for getting reliable results. But the restrictions listed above seem to mitigate that problem.

If course before we can consider the restrictions in this case we have to first agree that the Waterboarding KSM did in fact stop the Los Angeles attack. If we dont first agree on that. then this discussion is moot.

[generationyes]

But the whole "Los Angeles attack" plot happened six months before any waterboarding occurred. How do you explain that, genius?

[Nonamnesiac]

This author overstated an error made by Keith into a condemnation of the best commentator on TV. Yes, Keith was deeply wrong for offering money to waterboard Hannity. Civilized people -- progressives -- do not torture. We do not fund torture nor accept or authorize torture -- for any reason. Yes, Hannity is a stupid, despicable, dishonest, know-nothing, fearmongering warmongerer, as anti-American as they come. He is a tratitor to the United States. But we don't torture people with whom we disagree or sanction it at all. Keith got too caught up in Hannity's hypocracy, nastiness and anti-Americanism and took his eye off the ball.

However he and Lawrence O'Donnell also did a great job in exposing the torture, condemning it and calling for the necessary prosecutions of the cowardly sadists and psychopaths who condoned, authorized and provided Peabody Fractured Fairy Tale legal analysis to justify the anti-American torture conducted by traitorous Americans.

[nomobull]

progressives are not the only ones civilized .as for him offering to fund hannity's water boarding he was putting his money where hannity's mouth led him.so why aren't you and the author of this article calling out hannity for his part. he is the one who thinks so lightly of torture that he offered to do it for charity.keith did not lay down the gauntlet but picked it up.

[magic3400]

First point - never underestimate your enemy, we did that in all our conflicts until the first Gulf War.

This county, the media in particular, has that nasty habit of judging by appearance rather than capability.

Al Qaeda has people that are willing to die for their cause, you can call it whatever you want to but that is a very, very dangerous organization.

Don't let these last few years, or Cheney's "we kept you safe garbage" fool you.

They plan out their attacks over years, not months, just look at the amount of time between the 2 WTC attacks.

While I agree with the article on substance (I understand his point) I have to defend Keith and Larry to this extent, their intention was to point out why Hannity talks tough but can't cut it when push comes to shove.

I agree their argument got lost in translation, but don't dare compare what they do at Fox with the poorly expressed position of Keith and Larry. I will take those guys over the entire staff at Fox.

Plus Hannity is a chicken hawk and I hate chicken hawks.