VALUES OF LEADING THREE REPUBLICANS OFFEND AMERICAN VALUES

I cannot see voting for any of the Republican candidates. Consider the three leaders, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain. All three would give us a redux Bush, maybe a little smarter than W but maybe even more extreme.

John McCain seems the least crazy as well as the most likeable. McCain comes off as genuine, what you see is what you get. On the plus side, he is against torture and water-boarding. But his big negative is that he continues to support this unjustified and illegal war in Iraq.

Mitt Romney comes off as duplicitous and willing to say anything to help his chances. Mitt generates an unlimited amount of political cynicism. By saying that he would double the size of Guantanamo, he tries to out-do Bush in his cruelty towards suspects caught in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know that Guantanamo is the black hole where once you end up there, whether guilty or not guilty, you lose all right to appeal. You have no right to a trial, you have no right to a lawyer, you have no right to appeal to a federal court for relief under the Great Writ of habeas corpus. And Mitt would double Guantanamo? Has he no decency?

As to Rudy Giuliani, it is clear he has no decency. Rudy comes right out and endorses waterboarding and says he inflicted "harsh" interrogation methods on mafia suspects when he was federal prosecutor in NYC. Rudy never served in the army, has no combat experience, but endorses torture. Maybe his forebears utilized torture during the years of the Inquisition.

I cannot imagine how Republicans or anyone else could vote for any of the above. Unless this is how a person wanted life and society in today's United States - one where war was always the answer, constitutional rights for prisoners did not exist, and torture was the modus operandi du jour.

SCHUMER AND FEINSTEIN SUPPORT MUKASEY AS A.G.

It's hard to know where to begin on the sordid Mukasey/Schumer/Feinstein affaire. Mukasey refuses to say whether he believes waterboarding is torture. Yet Feinstein and Schumer announce their support for him as AG.

We might as well support the medieval church inquisitors and all the other torturers throughout the ages. I had thought that the French Enlightenment once and for all established the intellectual condemnation and prohibition of torture in all its cruel manifestations. I guess I was wrong.

And these torturers are not merely limited to George Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. Read the statements of some of the Republican candidates, such as Giuliani, Romney and Thompson, supporting these methods of "interrogation" and in Romney's case, Guantanamo. We can gauge how medieval and thwarted their Republican attitude towards life and "democracy" really is.

Surely the Mukasey affaire is not one of America's finest hours.

LET'S ADOPT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury in W's first two years, writes an interesting op-ed in today's The New York Times proposing universal catastrophic medical insurance for all Americans.

Writes O'Neill:

"The two organizing principles would be that the costs of catastrophic care would be spread across the population through insurance, and that while the high costs of serious medical problems would be covered, there would still be large deductibles for most Americans for initial care. (These could be paid out of pocket, or consumers could take out supplemental insurance to cover them.)"

But why can't we as an affluent society provide not only catastrophe insurance but universal health care to all? Instead of wasting billions on the disastrous war in Iraq every month, we could provide not only children, not only seniors, but everyone with both hospital and doctors' care, including universal coverage for prescription drugs.

The only thing stopping such universal health care are the Republicans, like George W. Bush. He has called the S-CHIP program a step towards "socialization of medicine," and "nationalization of health care." The other Republican presidential candidates, like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, mimic Bush's fear of universal coverage. Heck, they would rather have kids go to the emergency room and wait five hours for care rather than allow universal health care. Of course, Bush, Romney and Giuliani all have super health care, government provided from their times in office.

LET AHMADINEJAD LAY WREATH AT 9/11 SITE

I agree with Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. The opposition to Iranian president Ahmadinejad visiting the 9/11 site and laying a wreath is beyond reason.

The Iranians and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had nothing to do with the criminal plot of those Arabs who flew suicide planes into the World Trade Towers. Remember the suiciders were Sunnis, mostly from Saudi Arabia. There were no Iranians participating in that heinous action.

So why should Mitt and Rudy and Hillary say that under no circumstances should Ahmadinejad be allowed to visit and pay respects on behalf of the Iranian people?

Oh, because the U.S. considers Hezbollah in Lebanon to be a terrorist organization and funded by the Iranians? Remember that Hezbollah is primarily a social welfare organization that financially helps Shiites in Lebanon. Israel likes to classify it as a terrorist organization. So does Bush, Cheney and Rice. But that does not make it true.

The same for Hamas in Gaza. Allegations of support to Hamas from Iran are much more tenuous and much less verifiable. Hamas is the democratically elected government of the people of Gaza. No one has shown any evidence that Iran is funding Hamas. Yet the U.S. and Israel would like it to be true, maybe so that Israel can get away with imposing collective hardship on the Palestinians living there.

Botttom line. If Ahmadinejad has enough interest in visiting the 9/11 site and laying a wreath, no one should say no.

MC CAIN AGHAST AT MOVE-ON.ORG FOR "GEN. BE-TRAY-US"

Now John McCain, friend of George Bush and supporter of the War in Iraq, is criticizing MoveOn.org for its asking whether David Petraeus should rather be known as "Gen. Be-tray-us."

Apparently McCain is in the same camp as Rudy Giuliani. The public is not to question military officers, especially generals. Have McCain or Giuliani forgotten that the military officers in the United States report to civilians? That they serve a civilian society, not a military one?

Every American has the right to criticize military officers and their judgments. The McCain/Giuliani position would like to do away with this right.

RUDY BRISTLES AT MOVE-ON.ORG AND HILLARY FOR CRITICIZING (GASP!) GEN. PETRAEUS

According to Michael D. Shear in The Washington Post, Rudy Giuliani is planning to spend money to place newspaper ads attacking MoveOn.org and Hillary Clinton for their criticisms of Gen. David Petraeus. MoveOn ran a full page ad in The New York Times calling him "Gen. Betray-us." Hillary expressed scepticism over the rosy picture of "progress" in Iraq which Petraeus was giving the congress at the beginning of this week.

Hasn't Rudy ever heard of civilian control of the military? I know George Bush has abdicated his responsibility to the "generals," but why should Rudy think the rest of us are going to bow down every time a general walks by or speaks?

Maybe Rudy knows that the army is powerless to fight a war when civilians are against it. So maybe Rudy is trying to minimize perceived civilian discontent with the hated War in Iraq, so that the army can continue to fight Iraqis.

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN - DON'T LET BUSH & CHENEY START A WAR AGAINST IRAN

We need every reader and every blogger to join the campaign to prevent Bush and Cheney from starting a war against Iran.

It seems every single day, we hear politicians like Joe Lieberman calling for strikes against Iran. People like Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney. Even Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards say that as far as Iran nothing is off the table, implying that they would bomb and attack Iran.

Why does the United States government and its politicians think that Iran is the enemy? Or that we can solve the disagreements with Iran over its nuclear enrichment power plants by raining down bombs and missiles?

The U.S. thus appears to the rest of the world as the most aggressive, the most bellicose, the most militaristic county in the world.

Wars and bombs don't solve anything. Yet people like Bush and Lieberman continue to call for it.

The only way we can stop this madness is for everyone to make it his or her personal campaign to express and publicize in any and every possible that there are a lot of us who will resist this call for war against Iran.

RUDY DEBATES MITT AS TO WHO IS MOST CLUELESS ABOUT ISLAMIC WORLD

I don't know who is the greater threat to world peace, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. The New York Times publishes a verbatim transcript of last night's G.O.P. debate, and here is Giuliani talking about Iran:

"Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They’re a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists. And we saw just last week in New York an attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack JFK Airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix. "

First of all, someone tell Giuliani that Iran currently has no nuclear warheads. Therefore, the Iranians cannot deliver "a nuclear warhead." Secondly, Iran has no missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads. Thirdly, Iran supports Hezbollah not because it wishes to foment "terrorism" but because Hezbollah is a Shiite organization as is Iran for the most part. Iran looks on its support in the same way as Irish Catholics in the U.S. support their co-religionists with money and aid in Northern Ireland. Fourthly, the "attempt" by "Islamic terrorists" on JFK airport is at this point in time only alleged, meaning it may or may not be true. Fifthly, the attempt on Fort Dix has not been proved in a court of law. Sixth, Giuliani seems to conflate all Islamic terrorism as if it all emanated out of Iran. The 9/11 conspirators all were Sunnis, sworn enemies of the Shia in Iran. Therefore it makes no sense for Giuliani to imply that non-Arabic Shiite Iran is behind Sunni insurgents and/or terrorists.

The same lack of awareness of historical, ethnic and religious difference pervades Mitt Romney's view of the Islamic world. Here is Wolf Blitzer asking Mitt how he feels about attacking Iran:

"Governor Romney, I want to get you on the record. Do you agree with the mayor, the governor, others here, that the use of tactical nuclear weapons, potentially, would be possible if that were the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb?

"MR. ROMNEY: You don’t take options off the table. But what you do is stand back and say, “What’s going on here?” Do you see what’s happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, in Iraq and Iraq? All over the world we’re seeing the same thing happening, and that is, people are testing the United States of America."

Mitt seems to be saying here that we can view the Islamic movement as one unified whole, raising it anti-American head in Sudan (Sunni African/Arabic), Afghanistan (mostly Sunni tribesmen), Iraq (Sunni but mostly Shia Arabic) and Iran (Shiite Persian). Mitt is clueless. Perhaps he has been too busy earning fees from mergers and acquisitions at Bain & Co.

If any of these guys, Romney or Giuliani, is elected president, we will have four more years of Bush-lite "know nothing" muddled and catastrophic foreign policy towards Islamic countries.

TORTURE TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11?

Marty Lederman at Balkinization writes today about the outrageous adoption and acceptance of the use of torture by most of the Republican presidential candidates at the debate last Tuesday in South Carolina:

"Don't let the fast-moving Comey affair distract you from the other outrage of the month -- the fact that at the same time high-ranking military leaders are disclaiming torture and abuse in the strongest possible terms, most of the leading presidential candidates of the Republican Party have been tripping over themselves in an effort to be the candidate who will commit to greatest number of war crimes, treaty breaches and statutory violations if he should be so fortunate as to be elected Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy."

Apart from John McCain, the other Republicans, especially Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, seemed to heartily endorse the idea, as in, "what do we do when we catch a terrorist and want to know the details of a forthcoming terrorist operation so that we can prevent another 9/11?"

I have a question for torture's proponents: would you personally confess if you were subject to water-boarding or other "enhanced interrogatory methods?" Or take a technique from the Inquisition and volunteer to be the person accused of heresy. Then suffer something fort et dur, like being compressed between two planks with the screws tightening every 10 minutes. Or being held under water for increasing longer periods, something similar to water-boarding. I am sure you can think of other "effective" methods.

Okay, let's leave Mitt and Rudy out of this. Let's test these methods on George and Dick. Would they confess to being part of Al Qaeda? Would they admit they were planning to set off a dirty bomb? Would they sign a confession no matter what it described?

The answer is yes, even George Bush, even Dick Cheney, would confess to being part of the worst terrorist organization if they were subject to interrogation using torture. They would tell and admit anything they thought their interrogators wanted. And that is the trouble with these methods. A person will say anything to stop the pain, whether physical or mental. Torture as a method does not work and will never work.

RUDY GIULIANI IMPLYING THAT VENEZUELA IS "ENEMY" OF U.S.

Rudy Giuliani gave a speech yesterday to Hispanic small business leaders in Washington D.C. according to a report by Liz Sidoti, Associated Press writer, found on Yahoo! News. The article reports these words of Giuliani:

"I feel perfect freedom to point out that Hugo Chavez is a person who's acting against the interests of the United States. He's someone where we'd be in a much better position if we could cut him off. If we could say we don't want or need Venezuelan oil," Giuliani told reporters after the speech. "I don't think there's anyone that's more outspoken about how dangerous I think he is."

My question to Rudy is this: why is Mr. Chavez "dangerous," and how is Mr. Chavez acting against the interests of the United States? By calling President George Bush the "devil?" That certainly cannot be the reason. Words are words, nothing more than President Chavez's exercise of free speech. Should the United States consider Venezuela and Mr. Chavez "enemies" because when he spoke at the United Nations, Mr. Chavez called Mr. Bush the "devil?" Are these words of Mr. Chavez sufficient grounds for the U.S. to declare war against Venezuela? Obviously, for most people, they are not a casus belli, but I suspect this where Rudy Giuliani's critique of Mr. Chavez will lead, given the propensity of some people like Giuliani to solve perceived problems of the United States by dropping bombs and sending war planes.

Or does Rudy Giuliani think that Chavez is dangerous because he has nationalized Venezuela's oil wells? If so, than President Vladimir Putin is just as dangerous, because Putin has nationalized Russia's oil and gas business over the last several years. But I am sure that Giuliani would hesitate to characterize Putin and Russia as enemies of the United States because of Russia's sizeable ability to defend itself.

No, it is not Hugo Chavez but Rudy Giuliani who is the person most dangerous to the interests of the United States. By popping off against Hugo Chavez and claiming that he is an "enemy," Rudy Giuliani shows that like Bush he is liable to get the United States involved in another militaristic adventure leading to loss of many lives, without having given it much thought.