16. Cenk Uygur and the left in America are such liars and fakes but then liberalism is nothing more than a pack of lies. Cenk is making excuses for Obama while throwing Hillary under the bus. If this had been a time before Obama came along he'd be boasting that Hillary ate O'Reilly's lunch. The way the Democrat party turned on the Clintons reveals just how dishonest and cowardly they are.

Robert Byngham at 7:59AM on May 6th 2008

17. It's amusing to watch the left-wing clowns claim Fox News is in the tank for the right. Any news outlet that doesn't swoon for Democrat candidates and laud Al Gore as the greatest hero of our time has the left snivelling about bias. The left is so conditioned to seeing the media campaign for the Democrat party that when one doesn't they claim it must be biased for Republicans.

Robert Byngham at 8:04AM on May 6th 2008

18. Fox is successful because it fills a void left by the other brands. It's no less a news outlet than are CNN or MSNBC.

It's only a problem for those who believe that there's only one correct way to view things and that its their way and that any other POV is to be discredited and feared.

I thought Hillary did a pretty good job with O'Reilly. The fact that she even got an opposing viewpoint in without him totally talking over her is more than most can do. She showed she was tough by going toe-to-toe with one of the biggest blow-hards on TV. Obama sat with Chris Wallace (who, btw, took Fox's morning show to task for being too rough on Obama over the Wright situation) and pretty much wimped out.

If you think that didn't garner her support in some circles, you're fooling yourself. The Clintons are master politicians and this was a strong political move. Given the way the media has been fawning over Obama, any other candidate would have thrown in the towel by now. She's still hanging in there and an upset is not out of the realm of possibility.

I just wish my party had someone in there who knew how to play it as well as she does.

bob at 8:21AM on May 6th 2008

19. FOX is not a real news source, but I guess MSNBC is?

Davidg at 10:02AM on May 6th 2008

20. Why do people seem so surprised by the bias in Fox News' reporting? Contrary to what some might think, journalistic objectivity in politics has never actually been a reality. I'm not saying that I support their blatant bias, but jeez some people act as if they've committed a crime against humanity.

In fact, most newspapers were founded as propaganda extensions of party politics. The New York Post was founded by Alexander Hamilton himself to promote federalist ideology. The New York Times was founded by the friends of radical Republicans like Horace Greeley.

And let's not forget guys like Hearst and Pulitzer, who were nothing more than the 1890s equivalents to Murdoch and Turner.

But are Democrats wrong to go on Fox News? No. Avoiding them makes Dems just look weak and unable to cope with a news organization which will be tougher on them.

Tony Messinger at 10:21AM on May 6th 2008

21. Cenk,Maybe you and Ed Schultz should just go over to the neocons side of things.You two are doing nothing for the demo.s but trashing the best possible president in Hillary since her husband.Keep licking Obama rearend and next thing that will happen is that McCain will be the next president and you will be out of a job.

Robert McEntyre at 11:18AM on May 6th 2008

22. Chunk is right...Democrats should only go on real news stations like Air America, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, and Bill Maher. Jesus you are an ignorant douchebag Chuck...if we only knew who the hell you were and how you got this gig.

Who is Chuck Enger at 11:29AM on May 6th 2008

23. Scumbag journalism at its best

Patience Prevails at 11:21AM on May 6th 2008

24. DEMOCRACY SUCKS! WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND?
WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND! DEMOCRACY IS RULE BY MAJORITY! INDIVIDUALS & MINORITIES HAVE NO RIGHTS!
WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO WILL PROTECT AND DEFEND
"THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES" AND THE
"REPUBLIC" FOR WHICH IT STANDS! "EQUAL RIGHTS"
FOR ALL!

Chandler Yergin at 12:15PM on May 6th 2008

25. The legitimacy of torture…

Most people agree that an exception to rules prohibiting torture are extreme cases like “when there’s a bomb and information is needed immediately to save lives”. First of all, such circumstances never present themselves. It’s sorta like those ill thought-out self defense laws that allowed people to use deadly force to defend themselves only after their would-be murderer tied them to a chair, had a gun to their head and was about to pull the trigger. Obviously, by the time a situation becomes that desperate, it is too late. Secondly, just as most agree that in the era of AIDS, there is no such thing as a ‘safe drug’, I would submit that in today nuclear reality, leaving terrorists with global ambitions to control unlimited oil wealth is suicidal. So few realize that Germany only lost two world wars because both times, they ran out of gas. It is unfortunate but true that the only way to assert the rule of law and civility upon those to whom such things are unpalatable is through superior force. Just as wanton violence, gratuitous gunplay and taking the law into their own hands had become a ‘way of life’ in the ‘wild west’, there came a time when civilization enforced the rule of law. How did that happen? Talk? Was it discussed? Bargained for? No! Marshals were sworn in, posses were deputized and the law was discharged! Hence, superior force was used to bring about ‘civilized’ peace. Now, the time has come for civilization to come to the Middle East. To accomplish this, force must be used to extinguish the culture of violence that not only permits but encourages and nurtures those who would commit heinous acts of murder. There are those who say “Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaida” but, even if that is true, it is true only in the sense of direct sponsorship. The ideas, attitudes and public policies that gave to rise Al Qaida and groups like them is obviously alive and well throughout the Middle East. How do I know? Oh, I dunno…maybe it was the mural glorifying the 9-11 attack which was painted on the outside wall of a Government building in Bagdad. Let me ask you this: If anyone just took it upon themselves to paint a mural on a wall of a government building in Bagdad while Saddam was in power, what would happen to them? Knowing this, we must conclude that the existence of such a mural was done not only with permission of the Government but with their sponsorship as well. Did we see the money change hands? Do we have a copy of the cancelled commission check written to the artist? No…but considering that environment, it becomes inescapable to conclude that such a mural could not likely exist otherwise. Iraq was and would return to being a land whose culture encourages and supports terrorism. ANYTHING that changes that is worthwhile. Since the enemies of peace are willing to do anything, our options for effective action become more severely limited: We can nuke them—resulting in unacceptable collateral losses or, we can torture the occasional terror suspect which, can not only yield useful information but, probably will make them rethink they’re lifestyle choice. Remember, your dealing with people whom have already accepted the idea of death. What other leverage do we have? There is no torture that even comes close to the feeling of despair that becomes pervasive in the climate of terrorism. ANYTHING that frees us from that is worthwhile.

Keith J. Mohrhoff at 12:52PM on May 6th 2008

26. "Conservatives," are so defensive because we've been trying things their way for a long time now and it has been a disaster. "Conservatives," are clinging to the flotsam of a sinking ship.

They've got nothing left but flatulent, shills like Jesus O'Rielly, Coulter and Limbaugh, calling for riots at the Democratic National Convention.

Captain Negative at 1:10PM on May 6th 2008

27. "There is no torture that even comes close to the feeling of despair that becomes pervasive in the climate of terrorism. ANYTHING that frees us from that is worthwhile."

Keith J. Mohrhoff at 12:52PM on May

......You scare me.

Why are these people called terrorists? Their primary objective is to create terror. It doesn't really matter how many of them remain alive and outside our control, so long as they can make us afraid. They lack the resources to destroy this country... they'd need at least several dozen nukes to even try, and they don't even have one.

The only way they can win is if we become so afraid of further attacks that we destroy our way of life by ourselves. If this nation continues towards more security at the cost of liberties, then eventually America as we now know it, as a nation of freedom and democracy, will die. That is the real threat here - the threat of more attacks is a problem, but it pales in comparison to the threat of the terror and fear that the attacks inspire. The latter threat is what will truly destroy this nation as we know it.

"Since the enemies of peace are willing to do anything, our options for effective action become more severely limited: We can nuke them—resulting in unacceptable collateral losses or, we can torture the occasional terror suspect which, can not only yield useful information but, probably will make them rethink they’re lifestyle choice."

Keith J. Mohrhoff at 12:52PM on May 6th 2008

That's a false dichotomy. There are more choices than "nuke" or "torture". Other interrogation tactics do exist, you know. And why do you think that torturing terrorists will make them rethink their lifestyle choice? These people will gladly die for their religion, and in case that weren't enough, strong beliefs of a religious or moral nature make for some of the most powerful resistance to torture possible. Aside from that, you have to wonder why someone would willingly join with your side after you've spent even a few months torturing them.

Raigon at 10:19PM on May 6th 2008

28. Raigon:

First of all,I am not much interested in a terrorist "Joining our side". Such a person could never be trusted (a lesson we re-learned in Vietnam). What I am intersetd in is that he regret the decisions he's made. That he come to see his life as a failure. Thus broken, such a person cannot help but give up information--even if they do not mean to.

Believe me, I am personally familiar with every form of interrogation imaginable (and some unimaginable) but, non-torture techniques focus and depend upon the desire of the subject to 'better' his circumstances. Since the terrorist views death--especially a death that kills an enemy as well--as 'success', (and we can't offer him that), the only leverage we have over such a person is torture. The promise that, 'Pain will stop when cooperation is given.'

Why does this work? Ever notice how it is impossible to suffocate, strangle or drown one's self? That is because the instinct for self-preservation is stronger than a conscious decision to die so before death can occur, the instinct for self-preservation takes over and the act is stopped. When a person does commit suicide, it is because they put themselves in a situation that is beyond their control (I.e., jumping off a roof, shooting themself, taking pills etc.) These acts, take only a moment but cannot be undone. In a controlled environment wherein the subject is denied access to death, the subject is forced to confront the realities of his life. Having to choose between pain and cooperation, the latter is the only choice.

In an uncontrolled environment, (i.e., the world), a person chooses to embrace death as a 'shortcut' to a more meaningful existence. They do so for the same reasons that people here in the U.S. join gangs, get involved in drugs, or subscribe to socio-economic stereotypes. It absolves them of responsibility.

Keith J. Mohrhoff at 8:25AM on May 7th 2008

29. Keith J. Mohrhoff, experts agree that torture doesn't work. It might make YOU feel better, but torture just makes people say whatever their torturers want to hear. It's the only way to make it stop.

Captain Negative at 4:22PM on May 7th 2008

30. Captain Negative:

Torture by itself does not work. But, as part of a carefully structured program, it can yeild amazing results. Some people--like myself--are immune to the effects of torture. But, such people represent less than one tenth of one percent of the population.

In any event, part of ANY interrogation technique involves asking questions to which you already know the answers. This offers two advantages: 1) you develop a way to gauge how cooperative a subject is, 2) you get to attribute (which you will do anyway) the subject as the source of info so that when you raid the terrorist safe house, etc., you can do so and still protect the identity of your informant.

Keith J. Mohrhoff at 12:36PM on May 8th 2008