Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

On 100th day in office, Obama denounces waterboarding

93 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

93 Comments
Login to comment

Shouldn't that read 4 wars? And Pakistan and N Korea both have nuclear arms.At this rate it will be 6 in 200 days...9 in 300 days...well done Mr O.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Expect to see some really astute and perceptive political analysis on this comment page over the next few days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is so funny how the far right wingers here are squawking as load as they can trying to Blame President Obama for the 8 years President Bush was in office.

How can the far right wing folks claim that the economy is President Obama's fault let alone the Democrats. When it was their party who put us in this position.

President Clinton had support of both the House and Senate for 2 years the rest of his time in office was an up hill battle against the neo-cons.

President Bush had support of House and Senate for 4 years never rejected a bill that the far right brought before him. He signed anything that would help his friends.

President Obama may soon have what he needs to overturn all the insane far right wing damage done by those eight years Bush had control. I for one hope it happens sooner than later.

President Bush to it from us and gave it to his friends. Now it is time to take it back and help the people get back on their feet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How I wish we could go back 100 days from the inauguration.

Imagine if Obama had run on a promise to quadruple the deficit and to ram through Congress in four days (with the opposition literally locked out of debate), a "stimulus" bill that amounted to multi-generational theft. And, for kicks, he would release, against the advice of 4 different CIA chiefs appointed by the last 2 presidents, top secret memos outlining our strategy against an enemy that is sworn to the destruction of Western Civilization.

I can't see many of my liberal friends going for this.

But I could see the hard, whacked out Left in America on board for such idiocy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll make my comment early than allow you guys to debate this among yourselves, so far I'm pleased with what he's done. But he's been delving on the things that he promised during the campaign.

But it's what happens tomorrow that we've got to be concerned about. How he handles a real catastrophe, man-made or natural, that effects us in our borders.

So if you're republican Obama sucks. If you're democrat you're pretty much satisfied...with some exceptions. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans who support torture/waterboarding might be interested to read this, published recently in the Washington Post -

"Did Democrats really want to make themselves the party that stood for the rights of Khalid Sheik Mohammed?

The answer to this question, until recently, was no -- as long, that is, as Americans could be assured that torture, called by whatever euphemism, was necessary to keep the country safe. Which is why Republicans from Dick Cheney on down have been unflagging in their arguments that these ''enhanced interrogation techniques ... were absolutely crucial'' to preventing ''a major-casualty attack.''

This argument, still strongly supported by a great many Americans, is deeply pernicious, for it holds that it is impossible to protect the country without breaking the law. It says that the professed principles of the United States, if genuinely adhered to, doom the country to defeat. It reduces our ideals and laws to a national decoration, to be discarded at the first sign of danger. "

Source: www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1021977.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Did Democrats really want to make themselves the party that stood for the rights of Khalid Sheik Mohammed?

Too late.

They stood, and still stand, united as a party that wants to defend rights of terrorists.

This is the party that agreed to slander Gen. Petraeus and brand him a liar before the entire country, in nationally televised proceedings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Barack Obama said Wednesday that waterboarding authorized by former President George W Bush was torture, as he marked his 100th day in office with a nationally televised news conference Wednesday.

Took him over a hundred days to get around to that one? Heck, McCain had denounced it as torture years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter - "They stood, and still stand, united as a party that wants to defend rights of terrorists."

Rubbish.

Obama and the Democrats want to fight this so-called "war on terror" sticking to their and America's founding principles.

On the other hand, you, torture-supporting conservatives, Bush and the GOP were more than happy to lower yourselves to the level of the terrorists, destroy any claim America might have had to the moral high ground, and green-light Bush administration lawyers to draft memos authorizing torture to provide themselves with legal cover.

And let's not forget the CIA and military torturers, the so-called little fish. As servicemen learn during training, it is illegal to follow an illegal order. An order to torture or abuse prisoners of war violates U.S. law and international treaty obligations, as well as international law. When given such an order, it is every person's moral and legal obligation to refuse it, even if means facing a court-martial. Everyone involved with torture deserves prosecution, including the physicians and psychologists who sat in on sessions that involved "harsh interrogation techniques."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprpromoter - you will remember Bush announced 'We don't torture' circa 2005.

What Bush administration officials did - with the help of Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc. who signed off on specific acts of torture - was subvert American ideals and beliefs and redefine the meaning of torture itself so that they could....torture.

Case in point - the bush administration cooked up their own definition of torture as "causing severe or permanent mental or physical pain akin to organ failure or death."

But, you problably forgot (and the bush administration conveniently ignored) that the U.S. signed the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which defines torture as the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering..on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession..."

Waterboarding would clearly fall within the definition of torture that the U.S. in 1984 signed up to, and you, Republicans and the bush adminstration chose to rebuke, ignore and redefine in the collective madness that warped American psyche after 9/11.

Teleprompter, welcome to reality. When you come out in support of torture as you do, you are effectively green-lighting the breaking of your own nation's laws and the subverting of your own nation's ideals.

That's pretty much the complete opposite of a patriotic American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama's doing a great job. And you alleged budget hawks were silent for the past 8 years, so..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On 100th day in office, Obama denounces waterboarding

Thank you conservative movement, for 8 senseless years.. after which we actually have to denounce waterboarding, something that prior to Jan 20, 2001 was a given.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, the reality of the situation is that most people probably support waterboarding for certain people, especially if it will save innocent lives. What they don't support is a blanket policy that allows torture. That's the problem that we can't seem to reconcile.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the other hand, you, torture-supporting conservatives, Bush and the GOP were more than happy to lower yourselves to the level of the terrorists,

Superlib is right. 55 percent of Americans support waterboarding Islamofascist scum, especially when the scenario is a ticking bomb one, as was the case with Khalid Mohammed. Nancy Pelosi supported the use of enhanced interrogation back in '02. Since the Clinton era also had rendition flights I think it is safe to say "enhanced interrogation" also went on back then. Waterboarding saved lives. They were mostly American lives, which disgusts the Int'l Left I know, but that is your prob not mine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the long run, Bush & Friends - and all those who supported them, elected them, will be The Shame of Modern America. Torture is a shame disguised as ¨necessary¨.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib so only enemies of the state eh? Than don't be surprised how easy it is to become an enemy of the state in a police state.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do have to say. It's pretty sad that the only thing that the media feels he can really crow about as the greatest accomplishment in his first one hundred days is a headline...On 100th day in office, Obama denounces waterboarding

Well so do I do I, can I get an article written for me

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Torture comes in many forms:

"Evening Newscasts Have Covered Obama More Than Bush and Clinton Combined"

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/network_newsing/eveningnewscasts**havecoveredobamamorethan bushclinton_**combined_115055.asp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would probably look at this 100th day a bit more positive, but if you are an ivestor where a portion of you income is made, its hard. I would also give him a better grade if people would stop using the excuse "he inherited that and this" (no one told him he had to take the job. He better fix what is broken. No excuses. You don't jump on a job and start blaming the last guy you replaced for everything when you can't do it yourself, do you?

I would be happy even if I saw a positive little tiny bump on the markets, and not just the ones on cnn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama said the information gained from terror suspects through its use could have been obtained by other means. “In some cases it may be harder,” he conceded."

Ok, like what for example? I wonder if these guys were not muslim, would he have taken a different approach?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dennis0bauer: SuperLib so only enemies of the state eh? Than don't be surprised how easy it is to become an enemy of the state in a police state.

Well I'll keep that in mind the next time we're talking about a police state.

The fact is that if you had a guy who had information that could save the lives of innocents, we'd probably all torture him to get it. Obviously this would be in exceptional cases, but the fact is that those types of cases can and do exist from time to time. Saying you'd refuse to torture someone is easy, but saying you watched 1,000 innocent people die the next day because you refused to torture someone is a completely different story. You're screwed either way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact is that if you had a guy who had information that could save the lives of innocents, we'd probably all torture him to get it"

and I'd do for even my arch rivals here on JT.

I wonder who the admin is going to hire on to make these guys cupcakes and coffee.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OH, I just found a job for Biden!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's the big deal, what has Obama really done?

Let's see he reversed the dumbass backward decision on Stem Cell Research. Obama has visited countries on 3 continents and that does not include South America; just because he visited the Caribbean. Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and announced the start of negotiations on new strategic arms-control treaty. He reversed the dumbass backward decision to torture our enemies. We will also be closing a notorious torture center which was made clear in the first 100 days. Obama and first lady Michelle Obama met with Great Britain's Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace. We are currently rebuilding roads. We have money to continue rebuilding roads. We have already put more cops on the beat. Crime went up since The last Democrat was in charge; it will go down under this Democratic administration. Public works projects have begun all over this country. Stimulus money has been allocated and will begin distribution to U.S. citizens within 30 days. Obama attends a NATO summit and gets the allies to commit to 5,000 more military trainers and police to Afghanistan. Women's rights have been enhanced by legislation concerning labor laws. Science has already begun to be taken out of politics again as it should be. Research and Development funding has already begun. Money is reaching schools that will be used to hire new teachers. Obama has stabilized the financial and stock markets. Obama has stabilized the banks that were falling like dominoes before he got into office. Taxes have been lowered. The work has already been done to fund the rebuilding of bridges across America. The Republicans cannot stop that now. Sewer systems are already being rebuilt in Midwest America. The money to also rebuild sewage processing plants has been allocated and will be accomplished because of the bill Obama signed in the first 100 days. States are receiving badly needed relief, due to the executive branches poor handling of the economy before Obama got into office, which resulted in huge tax revenue losses in most of the individual States. Obama held "Open for Questions," the first virtual town hall meeting at the White House. Obama authorized a military rescue of an American sea captain taken hostage by pirates in the waters off Somalia. The rescue resulted in the deaths of three pirates, the capture of the fourth and freed Capt. Richard Phillips. He has already began restoring America's tarnished image internationally by dispatching the great Madam Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to assure nations we will no longer be using REDNECK diplomacy and will be returning to actually discussing matters with other countries and working out solutions. He starred in the G-20 Economic Summit. Pissed off Fidel Castro. Obama payed a surprise visit to Iraq, meeting with U.S. troops and Iraqi leaders. Obama lifted a ban on federal funding for international organizations that perform or provide information on abortions. Obama addressed a joint session of Congress. He began the process of reestablishing ties with Cuba. He attended the Summit of the Americas. Obama went to Germany. Obama went to France and attended a town hall discussion. Obama went to the Czech Republic. Obama addressed the grand assembly turkey which would be similar to a foreign leader addressing our Congress. He got a puppy. He started a garden. Obama welcomed Senator Arlen Specter into the Democratic party.

And he still had time to take a few pictures around some of the country's landmarks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why does everyone have to go back to Bush to compare Obama to? Look, the guy is out. If you my girl, the last thing I'd let you talk about is your ex-boyfriend.

Obama is cool. I don't know why you guys have to go off the deep end and kick other posters to the curb because we find reasons for complaint. Do I have to agree with a person 100% in order to like them?

As for the Redneck thing, hey if you don't like white people, you don't have to resort to calling them names and besides, Bush was originally from Maine.

Obama has more rednecks on his team than I would have. he did not welcome Specter, Specter got scared about his job.

Town Halls. When he holds one in New Jersey or Miami, then we can talk about that.

all those things you stated above I could have done in a matter of days. Its the least he could do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How much longer with the whole cult of personality slobberfest?

NY Times reporter to Obama: "What has surprised, enchanted and humbled you the most in your first 100 days?"

Dennis Miller: "We're living in odd times when Miss California gets tougher questions than the president."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if O is soo concerned about the health and welfare of the supposed terrorists, why hasn't he at least made a call for the release of Gilad whose been held in captivity for over a 1000 days? He wants the US to talk to our enemies, so why not mention this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: why does everyone have to go back to Bush to compare Obama to? Look, the guy is out.

Truth be told, I sometimes wonder how many people here really know and support Obama. You don't really know if someone supports an Obama action when they say, "Well, compared to Bush...". It sounds like whatever Obama is doing is actually isn't part of their opinion.

Obama is cool. I don't know why you guys have to go off the deep end and kick other posters to the curb because we find reasons for complaint. Do I have to agree with a person 100% in order to like them?

That will slowly change over time, but it's just been 100 days. Overall I'm pretty happy with Obama except for a few things, but yeah, I do notice that disagreeing with Obama gets you thrown into the "Bush loving Republican supporting" group pretty easily. Some people try to stifle any criticism and that's a concern to me because I think legitimate criticism is healthy for a deomcracy. I think we're learning that the anti-Bush people are just as bad as the pro-Bush people. The only difference is that we've replaced one group of radicals with another.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Overall I'm pretty happy with Obama except for a few things, but yeah, I do notice that disagreeing with Obama gets you thrown into the "Bush loving Republican supporting" group pretty easily." Ok, we have something in common. I like O, just a few things. But yo, you're right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: It sounds like whatever Obama is doing is actually isn't part of their opinion.

Bingo! (except for the flawed grammar.) Its not perfect, but is close enough that many are satisfied. Obama's way is ONE HECK of a lot better than you-know-who's way for many of us.

I think the lukewarm support also has something to do with not really knowing and therefore not really supporting Obama all that strongly. Another point you are starting to absorb.

I can tell you that I did not grow up with the man. Have not even met him in fact. All I know is what other people tell me, and it is really hard to declare a man perfect like that. Therefore, I am cautious. I simply cannot throw all my weight behind him.

On the other hand, even if a man IS perfect and everybody bad-mouths him, he is still a problem isn't he? Therefore, we do not hesitate to criticize the shrub. However, if even half of what we were told about the shrub is true, he is without a doubt very very FAR from perfect.

But would you rather we were not cautious? Do you think it would be smarter to just give Obama a free rein and carte blanche and pat him on the back no matter what? Doesn't matter. Some of us are not going to do that. Some of us are NOT cheerleaders. That is a more popularly conservative style error whose flaws have been made oh so clear the last 8 years.

I think we're learning that the anti-Bush people are just as bad as the pro-Bush people.

We are seeing that more sure. But I think it is mostly just a reaction to last 8 years. But I think most will snap out of it.

Anyway, that post reminds me of old times Super. It was constructive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: Saying you'd refuse to torture someone is easy, but saying you watched 1,000 innocent people die the next day because you refused to torture someone is a completely different story.

Pure fantasy. If you had any idea that 1,000 innocent people were going to die the next day, you would have to be a complete imbecile to 1) NOT be able to get more information through all the established and legit means of doing so that already garnered you that information and 2) to think you are going to somehow know the point at which you finally tortured out the correct information without employing 1 in the first place.

Face it, if you knew of this impending doom, you would already know a buttload. And if you got the information from a guy who casually said "1000 people are going to die tomorrow" BEFORE YOU EVEN TORTURED HIM, then I would question your sanity for deeming it necessary to torture him to get more information because 1) he is probably just a lying nut, and 2) all the aforementioned problems made even more complicated by the very high possibility that he is a lying nut. (Note: if you tortured him before he gave you any indication that the people were going to die, then you are a sadist, as well as an imbecile.

Torture is just one big fat logical fallacy. Which is why we have gotten by just fine without it, and nothing has changed positively for doing it. (And don't try to tell me that we don't know that. If it had, we would know. And I already knew by all the reasons that torture does not work before I even had to apply the "if they got something they would tell us just to brush up their own dirty image" postulate.

Torture only works and is necessary in works of fiction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay, okay.

The Obama phenomenon does help people from outside America deal with The Chip On The Shoulder and The Complex so many have vis-a-vis the Nifty Fifty. That is fairly obvious.

So as a Libertarian I can concede that on this point his presidency has been a success.

But, assuaging millions (billions?) of troubled foreign psyches shouldn't be our responsibility or concern, in a sane world. It should be enough that we saved certain continents from themselves three times in less than a century and have been the most generous and benevolent 'empire' in history.

I guess that's just how it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: But, assuaging millions (billions?) of troubled foreign psyches shouldn't be our responsibility or concern, in a sane world.

Bingo! As soon as we withdraw our military forces from around the globe, indeed, we will no longer have such an obligation to assuage troubled foreign psyches! At that stage, good diplomats and a moderately armed self-defense force would be quite enough to accomplish the task! But, that would take not only a sane world, but a sane American government too.

It should be enough that we saved certain continents from themselves three times in less than a century and have been the most generous and benevolent 'empire' in history.

Gratitude has limits and an expiration date, as well it should.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

like: wouldn't depend on what you consider torture? I've had my arm twisted a number of times and one of them was by a cop. My brothers have dunked me in pools and beaches, and my older sister has tickled me to near death. I never considered that torture.

I would say if we went the route and cut limbs, scared people up, I'd agree. But I can't bring myself to consider torture a simulated drowning nor flushing a book down the toilet (something I can't bring myself to figure out how). I think O is wrong on making it such a grand standing issue. If they stopped what they are doing in Gitmo and kept if secret, I feel a bit better.

I don't like his picks in his admin at all. And, I am still a little p.o'ed there aren't many Hispanics in his group.

Still, I like the dude

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder what President Obama would think if his wife Michelle had been kidnapped by terrorists and they were threatening to cut her eyes out and there was a terrorist in custody who almost certainly had info on the other terrorists who had kidnapped Michelle, and he was laughing at the interrogators...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Sarge. Like to see how the lilly livered Liberals on here will answer that. Tee! Hee!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bingo! As soon as we withdraw our military forces from around the globe, indeed, we will no longer have such an obligation to assuage troubled foreign psyches!

You're not playing bingo.

You're playing Clueless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: I've had my arm twisted a number of times and one of them was by a cop.

But did he have you indefinitetly locked in a secluded room? Was he in total control of everything you did for years? Was he threating to break that arm? Did you think you might not make it home that day?

My brothers have dunked me in pools and beaches, and my older sister has tickled me to near death. I never considered that torture.

Well, it was torture. It was administered by people you knew and trusted, and that is why you dismiss it, but both were mild forms of torture. But hey, some people consent to spanking and worse. But then, they consented, and that makes a BIG difference.

Now imagine of some guys in sunglasses came in unmarked black vans and whisked you away to a dark room and dunked you while swearing to God they would drown you. I am really curious what you are going to tell them to make them stop. Do you figure they will believe 1) I did not do anything. or 2) After all this torture and questions about bin Laden, the story you concoct about being in a sleeper cell. After all, the longer you are talking the longer you are breathing, and "I did not do anything" just does not take up a lot of "air" time.

And, I am still a little p.o'ed there aren't many Hispanics in his group.

I am not sure if you are aiming that anger at Obama, Hispanics, or just the situation. I just want to say clearly that I do not care about the racial make-up of his admin one jot. All I want is for him to chose the best people for the jobs, and if there are no Hispanics this time around, oh well. Imagine how P.O.ed some people are that they do not have a pure white president! Their pain has got be enormous comfort. In fact, a pure black president would have been a lot better even for someone like David Duke. Obama being a mix gives us the pain of both the race hater and the race separatists. I love it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, another big problem with torture, maybe easier for some of you to get than a logical proof: You have to have somebody doing it, right? Well, just how conscientuous do you think that person is and will remain? With each baby step into darkness, the odds increase exponentially that the people doing it are just cruel sadistic people who really do not care about others except to enjoy their suffering. In other words, the very last people you want with such power over others trying to extract vital information for gulp, the sake of others. Its just a playground to them, and they will try to expand the playground for their fun, not for the sake of information or anything good. That is what the Spanish Inquisition was all about. You really think those people saved any souls? You think they did much good in the world?

And torture still does not work anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Waterboarding is harmless. As Sean Hannitty says, it's the same kinda stuff as school hazing.

If it didn'T work,we wouldn'T have wasted our time doing it. Bet the terrorists are laughing now Obama the appeaser is in power. What is happening to my great nation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem with verbal inflation is that it obfuscates the topic.

Saddams iron maidens, meat hooks, pliers, and industrial shredders were torture. That is clear.

Is waterboarding torture? I don´t know. If it is, how do you distinguish between something that leaves mangled bodies behind and something that is just uncomfortable?

If everything is "torture", nothing is torture.

The people who are crowing about waterboarding, loud music, or an insect in the cell as "torture" have not clarified what would be permissible, in their eyes. Is everything short of 4-star accommodation "torture"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

on the record: you have no idea what you are talking about. The US hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding. The US signed treaty banning the use of torture and those treaties specifically mentioned waterboarding. The US sucks when they try and play the cop but don't apply the law to themselves. On the world stage the US is guilty of torture and there have already been summons issued for Bush lackes in the justice dept by the Spanish courts. Rice and Cheney will probably be next unless the US congress pursues the draftees of the memos that authorised torture. The US tortured some Spanish residents. Released them as harmless after they were waterboarded. Your great nation went down the toilet in the three years following 9=11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OnTheRecord: Bet the terrorists are laughing now Obama the appeaser is in power.

Whatever you say about Obama it beats the attitudes, like yours, that brought us 9/11. The attitudes that help to make people hate America enough to fly not only a plane with our people in it, but even themselves, into buildings full of other Americans can go the way of the dinosaur. Americans who torture give us all a bad reputation and in the minds of some people, that justifies terrorism. FYI, stories of American torture and wrongdoing pre-date 9/11. Most Americans are good people. But the bad apples stain us all and they should not be supported.

Granted that not all of the hatred America receives is warranted. But some of it is. Please stop promoting reasons to hate us. The people who are our allies did not get to be that way for us doing the wrong thing. No one else will either.

And the way you and others talk make me think you gained friends by intimidation. Or is that why you don't have any?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: I wonder what President Obama would think if his wife Michelle had been kidnapped by terrorists and they were threatening to cut her eyes out and there was a terrorist in custody who almost certainly had info on the other terrorists who had kidnapped Michelle, and he was laughing at the interrogators...

What a house of cards Sarge. Logic is not your strong point, in case you were wondering.

How did this terrorist who knows the other terrorists get into the picture? How could you possibly know he was involved, have him nabbed, and still NOT know enough to have other leads to pursue???

You keep having to come up with these insane Hollywood plots to justify torture. That really should tell you something. In case you did not know, Hollywood plots are generally full of holes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with mr spudman above. he talks the real sense on here about this

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees ... but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.”

But he can't name them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "'That wasn't me,' President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance."

Ahhhh... the old VOR is back! According to this guy, literally, Clinton created the start of the current economic crisis, it then somehow skipped over bush completely until the Dems took control of Congress (he fails to point out that they took it over because of bush's failures with everything), and then somehow it all began under Obama 100 days ago to the day (he forgets it began on bush's watch). It's funny because he actually forgets about the existence of the man he loves (bush).

Oh, and don't forget, this is coming from the same VOR who actually claimed that bush did not start the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan (THAT was possibly the funniest thing I ever read).

skip: "My brothers have dunked me in pools and beaches, and my older sister has tickled me to near death. I never considered that torture."

Your seriously comparing this to waterboarding of people who have been convicted of no crimes and are only suspected of something with no proof? Were your brothers and sisters demanding you reveal information you didn't have? Get real, skip. It's a ludicrous comparison even for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good on Obama. I know it makes a lot of the very few remaining bush/terrorist apologists angry that their government used torture when they promised that they did not, but I'm glad Obama recognized it, has publicly decried it, and has in the past said prosecution may not be out of the question for those who approved/carried it out in the CIA.

As for the rest of the issues he has been dealing with, and there's been a lot of trash passed down from GWB, unfortunately, he's doing a lot of what he promised, and that's good. We won't see positive effects right away, except in approval, which Obama has plenty of where his predecessor had next to none, and improved relations world-wide (and yes, teleprompter, since they affect the world we have a right to state our opinions on it... hell, even if they don't we have the same right), but in the long run he'll have rescued the US from even worse disastors under Republicans (like of the past 8 years previous to this 100 day). Teleprompter and the like will eventually in their heart of hearts be thanking President Obama, but all the while searching for petty ways to express their hatred and hope for disaster simply to say he was wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge said:

I wonder what President Obama would think if his wife Michelle had been kidnapped by terrorists and they were threatening to cut her eyes out and there was a terrorist in custody who almost certainly had info on the other terrorists who had kidnapped Michelle, and he was laughing at the interrogators...

Pure filth out Sarge's mouth.

If anyone had ever used such rhetoric about Laura Bush Sarge would never have shut up about it! Therefore statements like that are true hypocrisy. Laura Bush was and continues to be an honorable person and I only mention her because both Laura and Michelle were both First Ladies and Sarge used the First Lady in his crass example. There is no other way to show hypocrisy then a one on one comparison in this case. Common decency demands that you not use a real person in an example when you say "threatening to cut her eyes out." But Sarge cannot resist the logical fallacy of "appeal to emotion."

Obama made a well thought out decision to end waterboarding along with all forms or torture. Sarge cannot dispute, using evidence, that any information obtained with torture could have been obtained using other methods. So Sarge uses vile rhetoric to defend his position. In fact evidence has shown any information obtained using torture to be unreliable. The CIA has determined this and commented on it several times.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: I find Sarge's post concise , a good example and to the point, it certainly is not filth. The guy is a patriot.

Obama should be carefull what he denounces for as Sarge states, it may come in very usefull at any time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush and cheney were not torturing to protect america, they were torturing to come up with false evidence to support their illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq.

If bush really wanted to protect america he might have read his CIA briefings saying that OBL is gong to use to a plane to attack the US instead of being on vacation half the time he was president. He didnt bother because he was busy clearing brush from his now sold home in crawford.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis: Whatever you say about Obama it beats the attitudes, like yours, that brought us 9/11. The attitudes that help to make people hate America enough to fly not only a plane with our people in it, but even themselves, into buildings full of other Americans can go the way of the dinosaur.

Um, no. The people who fly planes into building are religious zealots who are brainwashed. They aren't people who are angry about torture. You're just grasping at straws in hopes that you'll find any reason to justify terrorism as as a way to think you can just turn it off by changing your own actions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurc: If bush really wanted to protect america he might have read his CIA briefings saying that OBL is gong to use to a plane to attack the US instead of being on vacation half the time he was president. He didnt bother because he was busy clearing brush from his now sold home in crawford.

Dumb analysis created exclusively by childish emotion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis: Pure fantasy. If you had any idea that 1,000 innocent people were going to die the next day, you would have to be a complete imbecile to 1) NOT be able to get more information through all the established and legit means of doing so that already garnered you that information and 2) to think you are going to somehow know the point at which you finally tortured out the correct information without employing 1 in the first place.

I'm just not willing to take your word on it. If there's information that will save lives, and there's a reasonable expectation that it will save lives, then waterboarding should be allowed. I'd do it. So would you. The only difference is that I'm honest about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there's information that will save lives, and there's a reasonable expectation that it will save lives, then waterboarding should be allowed.

Perhaps then they should have waterboarded the Virgina Tech guy, and waterboard anyone who may even have the slightest connection to drug dealers, gangs members, or violent criminals. It could be reasonable to expect that they could have information that could aid in the arrest of those types of criminals and by having the criminals arrested save lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The guy is a patriot

so often patriot is used as excuse to be same as other word ending in -iot. people using their brain and who read the history know that most of what the 'patriots' on here say is all just like the rubbish. has no value and smells bad like an old fish

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is happening to my great nation?

it's getting greater. not for you maybe, but you are just one person with crazy ideas are you not? most americans are glad to see new direction I think they are

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said:

If there's information that will save lives, and there's a reasonable expectation that it will save lives, then waterboarding should be allowed. I'd do it. So would you. The only difference is that I'm honest about it.

How could you be more sanctimonious than to tell others what they would do when they expressed a contrary view? It is no difference than the know it all who says "nobody is an atheist in the trenches" or to one who opposes capital punishment "you would change your mind if they killed someone you loved." We have seen examples of both of those being false. Those opposing capital punishment have had sons and daughters die by the hands of criminals and still opposed capital punishment. Now you want to tell those of us who oppose waterboarding and other torture what we will do when you don't have a clue what we would do. All the while claiming that if we disagree with you, that you know what we would do, that makes us dishonest. You did not explicitly state "lives in imminent danger" as Clinton and others have said. You used the vague term "If there's information that will save lives." That is of course the basis they have been using to torture - that is Cheney's position. You don't have a clue what other people will do concerning their convictions; so if you are willing to state you will not stand by your convictions, so be it, but don't accuse others of being unwilling to stand by their convictions. There are plenty of people who would never even accept the exception of "imminent danger." I don't think any reasonable person believes that you know what people will do that have contrary convictions to yourself and that they are a liar if they refuse to say they would not do exactly as you would do.

Sanctimonious Indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said:

"...in hopes that you'll find any reason to justify terrorism..."

Wow, that's quite an accusation to level at zurcronium.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 09:01 PM JST - 30th April I wonder what President Obama would think if his wife Michelle had been kidnapped by terrorists and they were threatening to cut her eyes out and there was a terrorist in custody who almost certainly had info on the other terrorists who had kidnapped Michelle, and he was laughing at the interrogators...

I have to agree with some of the replies to your FOX 24 series plot. Maybe you could try and sell the script to FOX and see how it runs. Your idea is so out of Hollywood it sounds more like Ballywood.

I for one am glad to the President of the United States has taken the high road rather then the Cheney road. He has drawn a line and has separated us from them.

As for the far right, for some reason these guys believe that if we torture everyone we can to get whatever we can that that is okay. But doesn't that make us as bad as the terrorist?

Under the Bush Administration we became a shadow of who we were. We lost our way and lost many people in the process. Instead of hunting down those that attacked us we wasted our time and efforts against those that didn't.

If Bush wanted to win this war he needed to capture the people who were responsible and end it. But he wasted valuable manpower and opportunities and messed the whole thing up. He moved us from the right war into the O.I.L. war. Then the more desperate he became to get something done he went down a road that we had never before.

Bush sanctioned full scale torture and who knows what else. To be honest I do not want to know how far our country went the Bush trail. I just want President Obama to dig us out of it and get the people responsible for attacking us.

If being a Patriot is being in favor of selling out our nations reputation and respect I would rather not be called that. I for one believe that our nation is great and better days are at hand. We just need to put the lost shine to our stars. Maybe with enough effort we can get that shine sooner than later.

BTW to the far right here, you guys really need to understand that Agent Jack Bauer is really Kiefer Sutherland, you know the actor. Jake is a character on a series on FOX. The Series is called 24, it is not real.

I understand that most of you believe that Jake is a true patriot, but he is not real. Get out of your homes and take off your far right wing issued anti-terrorist glasses. You can also take down the visqueen and duck tape from your windows. It's okay, the world is still here....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm just not willing to take your word on it. If there's information that will save lives, and there's a reasonable expectation that it will save lives, then waterboarding should be allowed. I'd do it. So would you. The only difference is that I'm honest about it.

Nice to see some people admitting that they are misguided to the point of being morally depraved.

I am 100% certain that better information can be extracted from individuals without having to resort to torture. In fact, torture takes things 180 degrees in the opposite direction. I'll cast my lot with those who have proven that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've said it before, Pres. Obama has done more for the republican party than what they have done for themselves in over 20 years.

Once the party of fiscal responsibility, the republicans had become the party known for drunken Sailor-like spending with zero concern about the national debt. But now look at them! Because of Pres. Obama, republicans have again learned, at the very least, how to wring their hands on TV about the debt (before dipping aforementioned hand into the money pot they claim to oppose). Is it hypocritical? Sure. Is it sincere? Not a chance, but it's STILL a huge step in the right direction for republicans.

Also, Pres. Obama has lifted the ban on republican dissent toward the president. How about them apples, huh?!?! Now, I know my neo-con pals here at JT HAVE to appreciate the fact that Pres. Obama spread a little freedom there way. It's all about spreading freedom, right? Could he have done more? Yeah, he could have thrown in a military invasion too, but...freedom of speech is on the march!

But of all the things he has done for republicans, I think the best and most important thing was teaching them about accountability. Considering where he had to start that lesson, I think he has handled that particular herculean task far better than anyone could have hoped.

So, I say to you, Mr. President. Thank you for what you have done for America and for what you have done for those most in need.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm just not willing to take your word on it. If there's information that will save lives, and there's a reasonable expectation that it will save lives, then waterboarding should be allowed. I'd do it. So would you. The only difference is that I'm honest about it.

You'd do it? I'm going to have to raise either the BS flag or the "O.K., I posted that without really putting a lot of thought into it" flag.

Better yet (and I'm just havin' a little tongue-in-cheek fun with you here), at the time there was a VERY reasonable expectation that NOT invading Iraq would have saved innocent lives. Would you have waterboarded anyone in the U.S. govt. for the truth about the lack of WMDs in Iraq? You could have nullified the justification for invasion and saved a lot more than 1000 lives, that is for sure. ;-)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gooddonkey: Perhaps then they should have waterboarded the Virgina Tech guy, and waterboard anyone who may even have the slightest connection to drug dealers, gangs members, or violent criminals. It could be reasonable to expect that they could have information that could aid in the arrest of those types of criminals and by having the criminals arrested save lives.

Not even close. So far we have confirmed waterboardings with Abu Zubaydah (USS Cole mastermind) and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (9/11 mastermind), and Abu Zubaydah (too many to list). I can't say I really have any problems with them being waterboarded. Osama Bin Laden? No problem at all. Mohammad Omar? Again, no problem whatsoever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

superlib- your no problem with some people being waterboarded disregards the rule of law. Without which, America flounders, is floundering.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans from Dick Cheney on down

A contradiction in terms. They don't come no lower than Dick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the auto industry, he was notably more upbeat about Chrysler’s prospects for survival than an administration report issued nearly a month ago.

Obama did not say so, but Italian automaker Fiat Group SpA is expected to sign a partnership agreement with Chrysler LLC by Thursday as part of negotiations to keep the struggling U.S. automaker alive without bankruptcy protection.

Well.....There goes another 4 billion we don't have and borrowed from future generations down the hole. Chrysler just declared bankruptcy. Just in case you forgot.

Chrysler took a $4 billion bailout loan from the U.S. Treasury and was racing to reduce debt in order to meet a government deadline today for more aid, after workers agreed to give up $10 billion in future pension benefits.

Good Job Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib

Why do you put my name next to those words in your SuperLib at 10:06 AM JST - 1st May post?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama said the information gained from terror suspects through its use could have been obtained by other means. “In some cases it may be harder,” he conceded.

Obama conned the media and his own party. I'm sure he thinks that militant Islamists just need a little time alone with the audio version of one of his unwarranted autobiographies and they will come around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why do you put my name next to those words in your SuperLib at 10:06 AM JST - 1st May post?

I typed doogDonkey instead of Good Jorb. My apologies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oops, goodDonkey, not doogDonkey.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

spudman: your no problem with some people being waterboarded disregards the rule of law. Without which, America flounders, is floundering.

Not necessarily. If that specific practice is outlawed, then it shouldn't be used. But I don't think it should be outlawed if it's proven to be effective. Obama's made his choice and that's that. I'm giving my opinion about the practice overall.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama counts on the willing ignorance of his followers. Upon moving into the Oval Office he contemptuously returned to Great Britain a bust of Churchill presented to Bush after 9-11.

In the speech he made marking his 100th day in office he goes and invokes Churchill - useful, but despised by Lefties like him - and makes the claim that Churchill, at the height of the Blitz, declared:"We do not torture."

But he lied, or was again ill-informed.

Britain did torture.

And no, this comes not from a "rightwing blog", but from The Guardian:

...He [Obama] may well have read such an article, and Churchill may well have made such a statement. But Britain did torture. Says who? Says the Guardian. I refer you, friends, to The Cage.

"The other day I was sitting in the Washington office and my Guardian colleague Chris McGreal came up to me to talk about the subject of torture and the debate over its effectiveness. Chris pointed out to me that in Kensington during the second war, there was a facility known as The Cage inside which Nazi prisoners -- chiefly U-boat captains, but others -- were routinely tortured.

[...]

"It was on one of the poshest streets in all of London, then and now; it was run by MI19, and specifically by a fellow called Alexander Scotland; it was of course a closely guarded secret; and -- most shockingly -- it operated until two or three years after the war ended, still mistreating captive Germans."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/apr/30/obama-administration-torture

Link also to a 2005 article from the Guardian

"The secrets of the London Cage"

· Beatings, sleep deprivation and starvation used on SS and Gestapo men · POW camp in Kensington kept secret and hidden from Red Cross

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world

0 ( +0 / -0 )

telepromter, its ok to torture Nazis, its not ok to torture Muslims! You know well that had these guys not been Muslims, there wouldn't be a peep about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka: I've said it before, Pres. Obama has done more for the republican party than what they have done for themselves in over 20 years.

Alrighty then. If and when the question comes up we'll all know what your answer will be. Until then, I hope you're winning the debate going on inside your mind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've said it before, Pres. Obama has done more for the republican party than what they have done for themselves in over 20 years.

May be.

Judging from the sharp jump in gun sales and the run on ammunition since the media's chosen one took office I'd say he has definitely spurred a lot of debate about gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super: The people who fly planes into building are religious zealots who are brainwashed.

That too. I never ruled that out. But even religious zealots CHOOSE their targets. Putting us in their sights is much like saying "bring it on!", and no, I do not want my country to be a morally dubious one just to spite zealots.

They aren't people who are angry about torture.

There are many reasons they are angry. Torture is a facet.

You're just grasping at straws in hopes that you'll find any reason to justify terrorism as as a way to think you can just turn it off by changing your own actions.

One would think you would better be able to identify a man grasping at straws Super, because he would be like a brother. I am not, by the way.

And why would I justify terrorism on the one hand and seek a way to turn it off on the other??? You contradicted yourself nicely there.

In fact, I do not think there is an easy answer to stopping terrorism. So people who drag their feet on the little steps necessary to do that REALLY GET UNDER MY SKIN. And there are a lot of little steps and big ones too. This would be a big step, but its our very image we are talking about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super: I'm just not willing to take your word on it.

Then don't. Humanity has quite a long history, and torture has always been a part of it. So...

If there's information that will save lives, and there's a reasonable expectation that it will save lives, then waterboarding should be allowed.

What is with all these gosh darned hypothetical scenarios??? If you cannot produce at least three real world examples in history where torture saved lives, then what makes you think you have any basis for supporting it? We would all love to see those examples. Really looking forward to it.

I'd do it. So would you. The only difference is that I'm honest about it.

You have been laying some real whopper accusations at people lately. You really should lay off calling people liars and supporters of terrorism.

Now how about that historical evidence to replace these Jack Bauer scenarios?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again, if "torture" didn't work why has Obama blocked release of the memos Cheney and others have said include proof that it did even though he has allowed for release of photos showing prisoner abuse in Afghanistan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis: That too. I never ruled that out. But even religious zealots CHOOSE their targets. Putting us in their sights is much like saying "bring it on!", and no, I do not want my country to be a morally dubious one just to spite zealots.

Your link between torture and 9/11 is absurd. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

likeitis: If you cannot produce at least three real world examples in history where torture saved lives, then what makes you think you have any basis for supporting it? We would all love to see those examples. Really looking forward to it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact is that Obama is not releasing the information obtained from waterboarding. And since you can obviously give me 3 real world examples where waterboarding did not produce any worthwhile information from someone who had it, then please do. My guess is you wouldn't issue the challenge to me unless you could do it yourself. Really looking forward to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong said:

telepromter, its ok to torture Nazis, its not ok to torture Muslims! You know well that had these guys not been Muslims, there wouldn't be a peep about it.

Please find one liberal who says that torture is ok as long as they are not Muslims. Or did I misinterpret your post. I'll let others decide. If what you are saying is true let see you find an example of someone who feels that way.

So many posters on JT lack any sense of honesty or integrity. It is obvious to anyone who would read your posts that what you are saying is false when you make spurious claims, about what others would do, when they have clearly taken a position against such practices as torture. It is obvious to the many readers that saying "You know well that had these guys not been Muslims, there wouldn't be a peep about it" is the same as saying that we are lying when we say we are against torture. It is the same as saying our only purpose is to protect Muslims. I know many in higher learning who would say that borders on bigotry. That claims of advocating for those in need of such protections because they now happen to be a select group, would in fact be a thinly veiled way of attacking that group by saying we are not in favor of eliminating torture but rather in protecting only a select group. It may only be a few that can make that connection but it is clear to those of us who can, that it begs the question.

Everyone with half a brain knows that the liberals are not protecting the Muslims. They understand the rules would apply across the board to protect everyone from torture. It was the Democrats that fought for equality for those of different races, ethnicity and religion in civil rights laws. I personally believe we need to keep the spirit of the U.S Constitution. Rights like due process should not be reserved for the privileged.

The Republicans have gone on and on about how they want to spread democracy. I guess they want to reserve the good parts for themselves. They are promoting Democracy Lite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Next 4 or 88 years any time better than last 8 years.

What happens after Obama administration, will be even better,if we get more calibre people into power.

Higher calibre is the way forward.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is quite interesting. It seems that so called religious people favor torture at the highest rate of any group. Since Jesus died by torture you would think they would be against waterboarding and other forms of torture. But no, not the case. And those that dont go to church regularly, more Jesus like in their approach to torture. Amazing.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

go waterboarding:

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, I asked you first. Come on, you got all of history to play with, not just America's post 9-11 torturing.

Stop copping out. This is your baby. Prove it works. Give us 3 real world examples of torture saving lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Give us 3 real world examples of torture saving lives.

Waiting....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurc said

This is quite interesting. It seems that so called religious people favor torture at the highest rate of any group. Since Jesus died by torture you would think they would be against waterboarding and other forms of torture. But no, not the case. And those that dont go to church regularly, more Jesus like in their approach to torture. Amazing.

A ridiculous comparison. Terror suspects were or may have been tortured at GITMO for the purpose of retrieving information about future attacks planned on the US and her allies.

Jesus was tortured for the sake of being tortured. It was a normal part of the Roman way when they sent a man to be crucified. Its partly to humiliate the prisoner in front of the locals and to show them that they may share the same fate.

In order for your example to work, the US would have to televise the torture for all of the Islamic world to see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Give us 3 real world examples of torture saving lives.

I guess you can't read.

Waterboarding worked on the three Islamofascists that this manufactured controversy involves.They cracked and provided intel that the CIA and security experts report saved lives. That the lives saved were American may bother you to a point where you discount or ignore what official reports conclude but this is your problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course there is no evidence that torture saved lives.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Tell that to scientists working on vaccines! Every hard science eventually uses cases of an "absence of evidence" as proof. Using a case of not being able to prove a negative in no way supports the completely different claim of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Thank goodness we have a president who now relies on science, logic, and facts. The American people are tired of the lame justifications given by control freaks who want special rules to apply to America. Americans were more than sick of Dick Chenney who didn't know grass from a hole in the ground; if you know what I mean.

Bottom Line: Any method we use to extract information will eventually be used on our military on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In order for your example to work, the US would have to televise the torture for all of the Islamic world to see.

AbuGhraid is my one word answer. He shoots, he scores, game over. Anyway, Jesus died from torture and the faith-based community of Palinistas seem to want more of the same for others who may as well be innocent of any crimes. Amazing hypocrisy.

Waterboarding worked on the three Islamofascists that this manufactured controversy involves.They cracked and provided intel that the CIA and security experts report saved lives. That the lives saved were American may bother you to a point where you discount or ignore what official reports conclude but this is your problem.

Telepromter, there is no evidence of any lives saved. None. Besides Cheney and Bush were torturing to try and link 9-11 to Iraq, that is why they did it. They needed something even if it was all based on torture and lies. They tortured to try to justify killing millions in Iraq in the failed phony invasion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How they miss Bush and Cheney...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They just lie and lie and lie and prevaricate and spin and dodge and lie some more:

ABC News:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites