America's about to make a deal with the devil concerning the President's torture bill.
They didn't make a compromise because of McCain and Warner. That compromise was nothing but a smoke screen. The president got 9/10th of what he was asking for.

Are we going to be the nation of torture and putting people in prison for no reason or are we going to be the nation of freedom, equality and rock and roll and poontang. Not to mention hillbilly music and Elvis Presley?
Why do we need to redefine the Geneva Conventions. Didn't it work well in Bosnia, Korea and Vietnam?

Why, because we've been violating it. Holding them in prisons and torturing them. As soon as they speak to the red-cross someone will be liable for war-crimes. They're doing this to keep out of war-crimes trials.

What are the US's alternative means of interrogation? Torture!

We're being hornswagled. They want to do torture, but call it something else. When you start putting peoples' head's under water and electrodes on their doo-dads, it doesn't work. There's been study after study that shows it doesn't work and that eventually people will start making stuff up to get you to stop torturing them.

Mojo wants evidence of the one instance where torture worked.

Most people don't know the answer to the question you're torturing them to get out anyway. Let's say you get some high mucky-muck who knows something, they won't tell you anyway.
Mojo acknowledges that in some instances it will be worthwhile. Say they get some guy who knows where a nuke is in NYC. We should start chopping off his toes until he tells us. But if he's a true believer, he won't tell. Torture won't work.

Eventually this torture will come back to haunt the US. Back with Japan in WWII, while the Japanese were mistreating our troops, we still treated theirs with some dignity. Why? Because we're better.
The president wants to end fair trials and the rule of law. They want to be able to call anyone they want an enemy combatant and imprisoned for life with no recourse. They want to be able to torture prisoners however much they want and use that information in trial. (Which is generally not permissible). They can also use evidence that they don't even let you see. You might as well just stay in jail since that's where you're going to be anyway. What's the point in talking to a judge.

This is us overreacting to Osama bin Laden, we're acting like a retarded giant ogre and playing into our enemies hands.

We can be smart and have someone in the senate stand up Jimmy Stewart style like in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington and jabber jaw until someone comes to their senses. We can't be known as the United States of Torture. We can't hold people indefinitely.

Even if you are a sworn terrorist whose sworn to destroy the US, you should still get a trial because this is the US which is different.

--Break--

Cream's Crossroads

-- End Break--

When you think of torture, and holding people for years with kangaroo courts where you can't see the evidence against you. What countries do you think of? The Stalinist Russia, possibly Mao in China, or the Nazi's or Idi Amin in Africa or Chile or Argentina, Saddam Hussein? When you think of these things you don't think of the USA where everyone is supposed to have a right to a fair trial.

A reporter asked Bush:
" Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"

Bush was pissed and responded-
“ If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

Mojo thinks there's two problems:
1. You're telling us what's acceptable and unacceptable to think.
2. Mojo would ask what's the collateral damage in Iraq when wee send it troops, bomb by the air and bomb by remote control.

When we do these things and there's collateral damage, we're doing the same thing to achieve an objective. Dead is dead.

Now we see Iraq was a mistake. Rather than dampening terrorists, we're creating more terrorists by being in Iraq. Iraq had zero terrorists before we attacked, Saddam didn't allow them.

The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) said the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat. We're not containing them, we multiplying them by invading the wrong country and lying about it, not having any plan after we took over and letting sectarian violence (between Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds to escalate to a Civil War.

There weren't terrorists there until we invaded the wrong country.
Now the white house has released parts of the NIE thinking it would help their case
"Iraq has become a battle ground for terrorists, If they lose there, they'll lose their ability to recruit."

Mojo wants an explanation of how we'll win in Iraq. Rumsfeld won't send more troops, we can't do it on the cheap.

There's a chance that Iraq will turn out ok. But there's also a chance Mojo will grow another dick that's a foot long.

President thinks its naive to think going into Iraq was a mistake. Mojo disagrees. The people who wanted to do harm to the US may have been nearby (Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran) but they weren't in Iraq.

Some of them have come to Iraq after we invaded.

Bush thinks going on the offensive against people who want to do harm to US is a smart move. Mojo's problem is that this doesn't describe Iraq.

Bush think terrorists want to fight us in Iraq and Afghanistan because they want to fight a young democracy. If you think not being in Iraq would cause less terrorists you'd be ignoring 20 years of experience.

Mojo asks how about instead of attacking Iraq, go where they are. How about finding Osama bin Laden. How about staying in Afghanistan until you're done and then putting the screws against Pakistan for hiding bin Laden. Then go after Saudi Arabia for supporting the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. We weren't attacked on the 11th from Iraq, the USS Cole wasn't bombed by Iraq. What about the trade center the first time, no, not Iraq. What about those embassies over there in Africa, Iraqis? What about London or Spain. Show the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

The political question is whether you think Iraq is a good idea and has been executed properly. The people who got us in are still using non-reason or LIES to connect IRAQ to 9/11. There's tons of violence in Iraq, but little has to do with terrorists, it has to do with the civil war there. With Saddam, he kept them separate and if they flared up just killed them.

Bob Woodward has finally come to his senses with is new 3rd book about Bush called State of Denial. He's on 60 minutes Sunday. According to Woodward, insurgent attacks in Iraq happen every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day. A shocking fact that the administration keeps secret.

Goes on to say that the situation there is getting worse. Intelligence experts think the situation will get worse next year. Bush says he won't withdraw even if Laura and his dog Barney are the only ones supporting him.
We've fallen into a trap here. Rather than be the smart dog we were attacked and started acting like a five year old. We're in Iraq so Rove could get Bush reelected. But now we're going to have Iraq blowback as the mountain of lies and misinformation comes to light.

This isn't good vs. evil. Life is complicated. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Paining this black and white picture is wrong. We need to be in reality. Objective, observational reality, not faith based reality.
The world is complicated and sometimes you use these enemies against each other, but by dividing the world into good and bad you make it easy for the enemies since they don't have to worry about anyone but us.

Talks of new book "What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy Threat" by Louise Richardson.

She has two main criticisms against Bush's terrorism policy.
1. We should never have attacked Iraq because they had nothing to do with international terrorism. And by doing so we squandered international support, stirred up Muslim and Arab rage and made the terrorism threat far worse.

2. The entire war on terrorism was a mistake, first of terrorism is just a tactic, our objective should not be the completely unobtainable goal of obliterating terrorism, rather this should be our objective: we should pursue the more modest and attainable goal of containing terrorism recruitment and constraining resort to the tactic of terrorism.

We should isolate them and appeal to the moderate Arabs. These terrorists are crazy and can't be satisfied.

She goes on to say" there's a seven point program to defining terrorism:
1. It's politically inspired. Almost all terrorism is over land
2. It must involve violence
3. Its purpose is not to defeat the enemy, but to send a message
4. The victim in the act usually has symbolic significance
5. Its carried out by sub-state groups -not part of a country but some group within
6. The victims of terrorism are not the same as the intended audience
7. Terrorism deliberately targets civilians.
Last point, terrorists are weaker than their enemies and that's why they embrace terrorism.

This isn't WWIII, it is a small problem that can be handled smartly. We need to isolate the extremists and those that won't give in we need to hunt down and kill them

Three ways to cut down terrorism.
1. Leave Iraq
2. Tell Israel to work out a deal with the Palestinians in 10 years or we'll throw them to the wolves. (Every terrorist org wants to say Israel is the devil)
3. We need to import a lot less oil.

If we imported half the oil we do now the Saudis wouldn't be holding it over our heads. Those people would get real reasonable if we solved the Israel problem and imported less oil. Make more efficient cars and tell Saudi Arabia we don't need a drop of their oil. If they're sitting on big reserves and no one is buying, they'll be screwed. If they ask when we'll need their oil tell them after they stop supporting bin laden and have free elections etc. We don't want them puppet mastering us with those oil puppet strings.

-- Quick Break --

Bill Clinton is not the issue. Bill Clinton isn't the subject. He wasn't the president when 9/11 happened. He wasn't the guy who lied about Iraq and then refused to leave.

Clinton can share some of the blame for not getting bin Laden before he left office. Clinton admits he failed in getting bin Laden. He left the Bush security team with a comprehensive plan to try and get bin Laden. The Bush team was warned again and again that bin Laden was determined to attack America.

Clinton has something on his side that the bush administration doesn't have, facts.

Condi Rice doesn't give proof. They claim the Clinton administration didn't leave a plan but it's now out on the internet.

It was someone's job to connect the dots and speak to the president and say maybe we ought to do something. Rather than get fired, Rice has been promoted. Nothing is ever Bush's fault. He's like a 2 year old who never does anything wrong. Apparently he's never done anything wrong in his whole life.
Clinton isn't the one who started talking about Iraq right after 9/11. Clinton went out of his way to support the bush administration especially after 9/11. Bush should hunt down bin Laden rather than complaining about Clinton.

Bush should have taken responsibility. Should have said " I was president and in charge of protecting the American people and I let you down. And I'm going to do something about it, fire George Tenet, Rumsfeld and Rice"

That would involve Bush manning up. He's a spoiled rich kid whose never had to work a day in his life. Not only is Bush not a man, he's a tool, a puppet head. Cheney and Rumsfeld are running this show. Bush like Rice because she does whatever Bush says, which is what Cheney and Rumsfeld tell him to say.
Mojo thinks that this latest London terror plot to blow up planes with eye droppers and mixing bombs on the plane is BS. Mojo wants someone to tell him he was right about this.

--Quick Station ID break--

George bush and his band of morons has screwed things up to the highest level.
To show you just how screwed up.
Story on the internet "Why Bush Will Nuke Iran" by a college professor. There will be an October surprise to get our mind off of Iraq and so the republicans won't lose the midterm election.

The article says "A nuke attack on Iran destroying them would show Muslims that they have no hope resisting the US" That people believe this is amazing. Iraq is another Vietnam. Iraq isn't going to get any better any time soon.

Maybe dropping a nuke on Iran will just make Muslims more aggressive at creating a bomb.

-- Station ID and Bill Hicks Clip --

Mojo's upset that they're trying to take away our French fries, Twinkie's and doughnuts. NYC is looking to bar cooks in their 25k food establishments from using partially hydrogenated oil aka trans fat. Mojo thinks food without it tastes like crap. Mojo says "Free the trans fat". Mojo has trans fat in him right now. Making food illegal is ridiculous beyond belief.

Mojo thinks murder, lying, rape, stealing should be illegal. Nothing else. If you don't like drugs, don't buy any. If you don't like porno, don't buy any. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. What double standard are we living under that we restrict adult access to things. Anyone old enough should be able to buy sex and drugs to relieve the pain of being alive. Rascal Flats are the devil. We need freedom to fight the devil. Everyone Loves Raymond isn't freedom.

--End of show--