Hey, Gov. Ventura; is that a 2X or a 3X?

I'd Rather Be Waterboarding... T-Shirt by webcarve
Design a Custom Shirt with www.Zazzle.com

Sometimes this stuff just writes itself.

Raw Story » Ventura: I’ll waterboard Hannity into saying Obama best president ever: "The former Navy SEAL said he’d relish an opportunity to waterboard Hannity, a procedure he endured himself during military training: “I’ll bet him a thousand bucks that I can get him to say ‘Barack Obama is the greatest president’ — if I get him to say it, he’ll give the thousand to charity and if I can’t, I’ll give the money to charity.”"

Actually, that's my problem. When crap like this goes on, and it has to be pointed out and explained and argued about as to whether water boarding is really torture or, Ghu forbid, the even worse, "yeah, so it's torture, but 9/11!"

It makes me wonder aloud what the point is. Those that get it, get it. Those that do not - perhaps it might make more sense to them AFTER the karma train comes rolling through their state of mind.

But then, I realize that it has, several times, and no luck so far.

And then I learn, that as a member of the "media" - peripherally and grudgingly - I'm the problem!

A new report for a leading neoconservative group that pushes a belligerent "Israel first" agenda of conquest in the Middle East suggests that in future wars the U.S. should make censorship of media official policy and advocates "military attacks on the partisan media" (via MuzzleWatch). The report for JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was authored by retired U.S. Army Col. Ralph Peters. It appears in JINSA's "flagship publication," The Journal of International Security Affairs. "Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight," Peters writes, calling the media "the killers without guns."

"Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza. ...

"Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts, and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow's conventional wisdom.

"The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity's interests, while our failures nourish monsters."

Indeed they do. Monsters just such as this. And the only "humanity" they tolerate is their own kind - and so long as they follow the age-old trade of death, horror, madness, revenge and retribution. Do you wonder what sort of person would consider such "victories" to be in "humanity's interest?"

I don't need to. But see above.