CIA Report

[Berkut]

If a man were measured solely by the sheer brassiness of his balls, Dick Cheney would be the winner.

No shit.

Cheney on Meet the Press:

Asked to define torture after reiterating that they did not engage in torture - ""an American citizen on his cellphone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York on 9/11."

That is so completely fucked up on so very many level it isn't even funny. It is fucking terrifying.

You know, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is something exceptional about America, that our national myth of exceptionalism has some basis in reality, then this argument, that what we did was ok because of what happened on 9/11, is basically saying that the terrorists who executed that attack succeeded 100% in their goals.

If there is something special about America, then what terrorists want to accomplish is force the US to stop being exceptional, to force the US to be just another unexceptional nation without particular values or idealism that differentiate it in any way. And throwing out those values because of a terrorist attack would in fact be precisely the point of that attack.

Do people like Cheney simply not see that? It seems kind of obvious to me. And people like Cheney are the ones who seem most enamored with the idea of American exceptional-ism, and yet so quick to be ready to abandon it as needed to serve even the most short term of goals. I don't doubt that Cheney really does believe the bullshit he is shoveling, which is why I find men like him so frightening. He really does believe he is right, and is not even capable of considering the idea that he could be, or could have been, wrong.

This is how evil is done. Not by evil men, but by men who really believe that they are serving a greater good.

[Neil]

I would think that Cheney is widely-travelled enough that he harbours no real belief in American exceptionalism.  That's just a slogan for use in hard economic times when 'land of opportunity' would alienate everyone.  It enables them to answer the question 'Why is America the greatest country in the world, rather than just the strongest?', and thus avoid dealing with any of the very real problems that afflict the United States.

[Martinus]

I have to say - the notion of American exceptionalism is one that I find pretty baffling. I've seen Jon Stewart (a leftie) interview Andrew Napolitano on the Daily Show lately and they both, without any reservation, any "ahem" or any wink to the audience, discussed personal liberties while acknowledging the axiom that America is the "most free country in the world". That was startling. This may be true for America in some areas, quite obviously untrue in others - but I don't think any European would make a blanket statement of such nature about their own country even if it was, mostly, true.

[Berkut]

I have to say - the notion of American exceptionalism is one that I find pretty baffling. I've seen Jon Stewart (a leftie) interview Andrew Napolitano on the Daily Show lately and they both, without any reservation, any "ahem" or any wink to the audience, discussed personal liberties while acknowledging the axiom that America is the "most free country in the world". That was startling. This may be true for America in some areas, quite obviously untrue in others - but I don't think any European would make a blanket statement of such nature about their own country even if it was, mostly, true.

Every country has their national ideals, their myths, their concepts that inform what it means to BE American. They aren't necessarily strictly "true" in a analytic sense, but that doesn't mean they are not important.

In reference to this topic, I think McCain is 110% right in exactly how he expresses what it means to be an American, or what we want to think we stand for, and how torture just completely destroys that. The fact that America isn't *really* truly exceptional isn't really the point...

[Martinus]

But the thing is they weren't talking about this in the sense of myths and ideals. They were talking in a factual, here-and-now sense. Essentially, Napolitano was arguing that American laws should be made less restrictive and less illiberal - and Stewart countered by saying that the US has already the free-est laws in the world so there is no other country you could compare to, in order to see what it is like to have a free-er society.

[Berkut]

But the thing is they weren't talking about this in the sense of myths and ideals. They were talking in a factual, here-and-now sense. Essentially, Napolitano was arguing that American laws should be made less restrictive and less illiberal - and Stewart countered by saying that the US has already the free-est laws in the world so there is no other country you could compare to, in order to see what it is like to have a free-er society.

Hmmm. I don't know what the context is - is Stewart right though? Are there other Western countries with "freer" laws in general than the US?

I don't really know the answer - hell, I don't even really know what the question is, or how you would measure it.

Were they talking about economic regulation? Social regulation?

[The Brain]

I don't think Americans have to worry about not being exceptional when it comes to torture. Sorry, Enhanced Torture Techniques.

As for free, America is freer in some ways and not in others. America has much stronger freedom of speech than Sweden, but it also has estate tax etc etc etc.

[Valmy]

I have to say - the notion of American exceptionalism is one that I find pretty baffling. I've seen Jon Stewart (a leftie) interview Andrew Napolitano on the Daily Show lately and they both, without any reservation, any "ahem" or any wink to the audience, discussed personal liberties while acknowledging the axiom that America is the "most free country in the world". That was startling. This may be true for America in some areas, quite obviously untrue in others - but I don't think any European would make a blanket statement of such nature about their own country even if it was, mostly, true.

It is a vital concept in the functioning of our country.  If we ever stopped believing this then I am not sure what would be the point of our country.  It would be like Poland deciding to stop being Polish.

[PJL]

Cheney on Meet the Press:

Asked to define torture after reiterating that they did not engage in torture - ""an American citizen on his cellphone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York on 9/11."

That is so completely fucked up on so very many level it isn't even funny. It is fucking terrifying.

You know, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is something exceptional about America, that our national myth of exceptionalism has some basis in reality, then this argument, that what we did was ok because of what happened on 9/11, is basically saying that the terrorists who executed that attack succeeded 100% in their goals.

If there is something special about America, then what terrorists want to accomplish is force the US to stop being exceptional, to force the US to be just another unexceptional nation without particular values or idealism that differentiate it in any way. And throwing out those values because of a terrorist attack would in fact be precisely the point of that attack.

Do people like Cheney simply not see that? It seems kind of obvious to me. And people like Cheney are the ones who seem most enamored with the idea of American exceptional-ism, and yet so quick to be ready to abandon it as needed to serve even the most short term of goals. I don't doubt that Cheney really does believe the bullshit he is shoveling, which is why I find men like him so frightening. He really does believe he is right, and is not even capable of considering the idea that he could be, or could have been, wrong.

This is how evil is done. Not by evil men, but by men who really believe that they are serving a greater good.

Quite, In this Cheney = Hitler. For real.

[OttoVonBismarck]

No shit.

Cheney on Meet the Press:

Asked to define torture after reiterating that they did not engage in torture - ""an American citizen on his cellphone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York on 9/11."

That is so completely fucked up on so very many level it isn't even funny. It is fucking terrifying.

You know, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is something exceptional about America, that our national myth of exceptionalism has some basis in reality, then this argument, that what we did was ok because of what happened on 9/11, is basically saying that the terrorists who executed that attack succeeded 100% in their goals.

If there is something special about America, then what terrorists want to accomplish is force the US to stop being exceptional, to force the US to be just another unexceptional nation without particular values or idealism that differentiate it in any way. And throwing out those values because of a terrorist attack would in fact be precisely the point of that attack.

Do people like Cheney simply not see that? It seems kind of obvious to me. And people like Cheney are the ones who seem most enamored with the idea of American exceptional-ism, and yet so quick to be ready to abandon it as needed to serve even the most short term of goals. I don't doubt that Cheney really does believe the bullshit he is shoveling, which is why I find men like him so frightening. He really does believe he is right, and is not even capable of considering the idea that he could be, or could have been, wrong.

This is how evil is done. Not by evil men, but by men who really believe that they are serving a greater good.

It's cute when a guy doesn't go through his bright eyed emo college kid phase until middle age. Daily Kos style.

[CountDeMoney]

Washington Post's Factchecker gives Uncle Dick's "claim that the U.S. did not prosecute Japanese soldiers for waterboarding" on Sunday's "Meet the Press" three Pinnochios.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/16/cheneys-claim-that-the-u-s-did-not-prosecute-japanese-soldiers-for-waterboarding/?hpid=z6

And they tossed in some art while they were at it. 

Da Nang, '68.
Not pictured:  Dick Cheney (five deferments)

[Martinus]

But the thing is they weren't talking about this in the sense of myths and ideals. They were talking in a factual, here-and-now sense. Essentially, Napolitano was arguing that American laws should be made less restrictive and less illiberal - and Stewart countered by saying that the US has already the free-est laws in the world so there is no other country you could compare to, in order to see what it is like to have a free-er society.

Hmmm. I don't know what the context is - is Stewart right though? Are there other Western countries with "freer" laws in general than the US?

I don't really know the answer - hell, I don't even really know what the question is, or how you would measure it.

Were they talking about economic regulation? Social regulation?

They were talking about stuff like drone strikes and invigilation. My point is, I guess, that in stuff like that Western countries are probably at the forefront of freedom, with regulations being quite complex and varying to a degree in their different aspects (I would assume for example Scandiweenia would be free-er when it comes to powers of the police; while the US would be free-er in some other aspects etc.)

What I found perplexing is Stewart's insistence (and Napolitano's unreserved agreement) that the US is freeest, period. Even if it is true, I would imagine anyone would reserve their position by saying "we are one of the freeest nations in the world" or something along these lines.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Meh, we didn't prosecute very many of the Japanese, in proportion to the massive number that were war criminals. Plus as described the Japanese water torture really wasn't waterboarding, different things:

The judgment of the IMTFE included a description of the type of torture known as "the water treatment," in which "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness,"

One thing that The Economist noted is that while the torture was bad and stuff, America is legit one of the few countries that so regularly and so thoroughly airs its dirty laundry in public. There are a lot of liberal democracies that white wash their ethical failings.

[OttoVonBismarck]

They were talking about stuff like drone strikes and invigilation. My point is, I guess, that in stuff like that Western countries are probably at the forefront of freedom, with regulations being quite complex and varying to a degree in their different aspects (I would assume for example Scandiweenia would be free-er when it comes to powers of the police; while the US would be free-er in some other aspects etc.)

What I found perplexing is Stewart's insistence (and Napolitano's unreserved agreement) that the US is freeest, period. Even if it is true, I would imagine anyone would reserve their position by saying "we are one of the freeest nations in the world" or something along these lines.

While often taken seriously, Jon Stewart at heart is a comedian who is just politically knowledge enough to be dangerous. I doubt he actually has any comprehensive knowledge of typical laws in other OECD countries, for example. He's just repeating some platitude he heard somewhere.

[frunk]

One thing that The Economist noted is that while the torture was bad and stuff, America is legit one of the few countries that so regularly and so thoroughly airs its dirty laundry in public. There are a lot of liberal democracies that white wash their ethical failings.

So it's ok as long as we tell people about it?  Exposing it doesn't make it better unless it prevents it from happening again.  Cheney's position is quite the opposite of contrite.